3.5 is not broken

[Kultrum]

So, theyre essentially useless after level 5?

Because. There. Isnt. Any. Way. To. Force. The. Bad. Guys. To. Hit. The. Fighter.

except good DMing. The job of a good DM is to make the game fun. You make the fighter feel useful by having the enemy hit the fighter back after the fighter hits him. Also depending on the enemy some will attack the fighter first because they appear more threatening, and save the wizard for later (he could just be a commoner for all they know) and the ones that gun for the wizard to start tell me they wont, at least, turn around when they get hit in the back with a big sword.

[Rigeld2]

Right. Its good DMing to have bad guys ignore the guy waving his hands... you know, they guy that can kill you with his mind.

[Counterpower]

So, again, youre relying on a spellcaster to help the fighter kill the spellcaster.

Does a spellcaster have to rely on a fighter to kill a fighter?

That depends on many different factors, including who gets the first action.


So, theyre essentially useless after level 5?

Because. There. Isnt. Any. Way. To. Force. The. Bad. Guys. To. Hit. The. Fighter.

Now you're just being unimaginative. A few walls of whatever might help, or there could be the spell effect that allows the fighter to share the damage with the wizard, like shield other. Or the wizard could make himself appear like a fighter and the fighter like a spellcaster (yay for illusions). Then there's greater invisibility. If the fighter is the only threat that the enemies can see.........


Right. Its good DMing to have bad guys ignore the guy waving his hands... you know, they guy that can kill you with his mind.

It's good DMing to ensure that everyone has fun. If I need to make the bad guys have Int 3 to do that, then I will.

[Kultrum]

Right. Its good DMing to have bad guys ignore the guy waving his hands... you know, they guy that can kill you with his mind.

again you insinuate that the enemy (in-game) knows everything you do (out of game) In game magic is an incredibly complex art that only a few master and there for most enemies know very little about it. They do understand hoever that the sword blow to the head hurt. they will brake from the fighter when the wizard starts the killing but then everyone in the party have started to do there part, the rogue is about to sneak attack something, the cleric is healing/ casting etc. the game is based around parties so the DM obliges.

[Rigeld2]

The default D&D world is high magic. Theres a spellcaster in every large village. Humanoid tribes have shaman, which are spellcasters. Assuming that noone knows that people can cast spells is ridiculous.

[Kultrum]

The default D&D world is high magic. Theres a spellcaster in every large village. Humanoid tribes have shaman, which are spellcasters. Assuming that noone knows that people can cast spells is ridiculous.

yes people know that people can cast spells but most people are pent-up in their own lives and too focused on surviving to worry about what the local spellcaster is doing. And as for the shaman he's a mystic of noble descent or of some kind of noble place in his community. He is not studied but held in awe.

[tsuyoshikentsu]

yes people know that people can cast spells but most people are pent-up in their own lives and too focused on surviving to worry about what the local spellcaster is doing. And as for the shaman he's a mystic of noble descent or of some kind of noble place in his community. He is not studied but held in awe.

None of that prevents people from seeing what happens when he starts rummaging around in a funny pouch, mumbling things, and gesturing oddly.

Look. There is no check in-game to see that someone is casting a spell. (Unless it's concealed through a feat or something.) NONE. The only check is to identify the spell. It is assumed that an INT 3 Half-Orc Frenzied Berserker in the midst of a rage AND frenzy will be able to tell when someone is casting a spell.

[Kultrum]

None of that prevents people from seeing what happens when he starts rummaging around in a funny pouch, mumbling things, and gesturing oddly.

Look. There is no check in-game to see that someone is casting a spell. (Unless it's concealed through a feat or something.) NONE. The only check is to identify the spell. It is assumed that an INT 3 Half-Orc Frenzied Berserker in the midst of a rage AND frenzy will be able to tell when someone is casting a spell.

true but that doesn't force them to brake from the guy who is an obvious threat to fight the guy that might be a threat for all they know he may be searching for a weapon or an Item to help him get away
and as for assuming I homerule anything I feel is unspecified that cames up. Whats more my player like my system of battle because its based on the enemy not the party

[KoDT69]

Wow, I got it. D&D IS broken. But I got the solution, SOVERIGN GLUE! There it's fixed, roll for initiative! :smallbiggrin:

[Kultrum]

Wow, I got it. D&D IS broken. But I got the solution, SOVERIGN GLUE! There it's fixed, roll for initiative! :smallbiggrin:

no that won't work some jerk will find some universal solvent and break it again just so they can exploit something

[Aquillion]

If wizards are supposed to be more powerful, why is Conan always winning?

Conan usually comes out on top because of his cunning, skill or yes, sometimes he just hacks the crap out of them. Sorry, but I feel that D&D warriors should have the same chance.Conan wins because he's the main character. (In the same fashion, PCs will usually win most of their battles, because that's the point of the game, really. Who was it who said that the art of being a good DM is letting the players win without having them catch on?)

The point is that you see Conan fighting high-level wizards because it's impressive. Master wizards are supposed to be big and powerful. How often do you see a story focusing on Conan fighting a high-level bard? Occasionally, sure, but it's not as impressive. Conan's victory over wizards is always shown as dramatic and against-the-odds--it's impressive because he defeated someone who is, objectively, much more powerful than he is.

Now, yes, I agree that it is nice when fighters have a chance (and they will, if the DM plays the wizard correctly--just like the wizards in those Conan stories were 'played' to let him win), but overall a fighter defeating a high-level wizard should be a noteworthy occasion. In terms of mechanics they shouldn't have a 50% chance of winning or whatever; the game isn't intended to be balanced for PVP.

Many fighter-type classes (although not the fighter himself) are perfectly functional for their main purposes: Dishing out huge amounts of damage quickly to opponents that the wizard has rendered helpless or nearly-helpless, and mopping up opponents that are too weak to waste resouces on. There's nothing imbalanced about that--classes are supposed to function as part of a group, not as some sort of bizarre PVP lineup.

[Counterspin]

Saying that because you've never had problems with the system it's fine is a logical fallacy. It proves nothing, so no matter how many times you say it you will never have any impact. Just because your Pinto has never exploded does not mean that the Pinto is the definitive pinnacle of car engineering.

Additionally, stop claiming that the D&D is broken people hate D&D or think that it is no fun to play. I've never see anyone say that, and these threads pop up all the time. We like D&D, which is why we've spent the time mulling the rule books, playing with builds, and figuring out what's not working right.

Thirdly, stop bringing up the PVP silliness. What we're interested in is the inability of non casters to contribute at the mid to high levels and how to fix it.

[Kultrum]

... you thread killing bastard:smallmad:

[lord_khaine]

well if we should try and rerail this discussion, to talk about what the noncasters can contribute at the very high lvs, then i would say out of combat there is quite a lot the noncasters can do, though the use of those skills the casters dont have so many skillpoints to invest in like the social skills, or the removing of traps (and not the monk way, wich is to hope your high saves + evasion will save you :) )

as for in combat, imo there is a fix to the noncasters there, and its called Tome of battle, it does a pretty good job of bringing the melee guys very close to anything but a 100% tuned caster of the kind that has taken the player several hours to brew up.

[Kultrum]

well if we should try and rerail this discussion, to talk about what the noncasters can contribute at the very high lvs, then i would say out of combat there is quite a lot the noncasters can do, though the use of those skills the casters dont have so many skillpoints to invest in like the social skills, or the removing of traps (and not the monk way, wich is to hope your high saves + evasion will save you :) )

as for in combat, imo there is a fix to the noncasters there, and its called Tome of battle, it does a pretty good job of bringing the melee guys very close to anything but a 100% tuned caster of the kind that has taken the player several hours to brew up.

Clear *boom* beep...beep...beep
any who ya ToB rocks out loud and can i give a shout to rogues for disarming that anti-magic zone trap...
Warblades make high level meleeists (that is my word!) fun to play and because they get access to everything fighters get (albeit at a higher level)+ stances+maneuvers+a d12 HD people want to play them to high levels.

[Missing Shoe]

Saying that because you've never had problems with the system it's fine is a logical fallacy. It proves nothing, so no matter how many times you say it you will never have any impact. Just because your Pinto has never exploded does not mean that the Pinto is the definitive pinnacle of car engineering.

Additionally, stop claiming that the D&D is broken people hate D&D or think that it is no fun to play. I've never see anyone say that, and these threads pop up all the time. We like D&D, which is why we've spent the time mulling the rule books, playing with builds, and figuring out what's not working right.

Thirdly, stop bringing up the PVP silliness. What we're interested in is the inability of non casters to contribute at the mid to high levels and how to fix it.
While I commend you for bringing logic into this discussion, I don't agree with it completely. "PVP silliness" does not translate to traditional DnD 100%, however, some DM's play their NPCs and monster to their full potential (note the key word potential). In this case one can view it as a PVP battle between the DM and the PCs.

I agree with you, however, that PvP does not correctly measure a classes power and ability. A gauntlet where they face various challenges would be a better measure if done right. Even still, each classes is limited to the PC's playing style.

-

What I would rather see than all of these "PvP battles to prove class power" or the endless debates of one time situational stories, is a forum wide designed gauntlet that can be played by each forum member separately so they can find what class works best for THEM. The gauntlet wont "prove" 100% which class they are best with, it all depends on the various situations we come up with.

At the same time, I don't have the time to design it. I was just throwing it out there in case someone wants to run with it. I think anyone should be allowed to contribute, but maybe have a ranking system for each room or situation.

[Latronis]

oh for * sake stop posting so much crap while im at work\sleeping i cant keep up

[Innis Cabal]

your not missing anything important, people just dont seem to want to solve the problem, they just want to complain

[Rigeld2]

your not missing anything important, people just dont seem to want to solve the problem, they just want to complain
...
Literally thousands of sugestions have been made. Some of the biggest "complainers" (those of use who say the RAW isnt balanced) are some of the ones that are suggesting the most fixes.

I resent the implication that I'm just a useless whiner.

[Innis Cabal]

there are how many threads on fixing the class's, on this forum and others for that matter. This isnt a thread for fix's, its about wether D&D is broken or not. And yes there have been suggestions but none of them been looked at, just shouted down, at least from what i can see.

[Latronis]

your not missing anything important, people just dont seem to want to solve the problem, they just want to complain

that made me laugh since my previous post was just me *****ing

[Innis Cabal]

ya, and people getting high and mighty over a forum topic, im glad i made someone laugh today

[Rigeld2]

there are how many threads on fixing the class's, on this forum and others for that matter.
Exactly. Which means that people arent just interested in complaining, as you proclaimed they are.

This isnt a thread for fix's, its about wether D&D is broken or not. And yes there have been suggestions but none of them been looked at, just shouted down, at least from what i can see.
In this thread, people have been suggesting "fixes" by saying RAW already says that. The "shouting down" is people saying that RAW doesnt work that way.
Pushing off hosuerules as RAW is not a fix. Just using the houserules is.

[Innis Cabal]

and if you go back you'll see im on the side of the house rule thing, in fact as far as i know i was one of the first to post it. And i was talking about the people telling us that house rules shouldnt be becuase thats not how the game is. I've been trying to gve suggestions, but ive been told that using new systems takes to much time and other lazy excuses. I meant no one on the side of it being broken has given a valid argument other then "D&D 3.5 sucks!"

[Rigeld2]

Youre not understanding something...
D&D 3.5 RAW sucks. Its not balanced. It is broken.
Arguing that its not broken because you can houserule it doesnt work. I can hosuerule anything, in any game. I can houserule that in Chess, my bishops can move straight and diagonal. That doesnt mean that Chess is broken, it means I broke it.
D&D houserules dont mean that D&D is fine, it means my houserules made it fine.

[ArmorArmadillo]

Youre not understanding something...
D&D 3.5 RAW sucks. Its not balanced. It is broken.
Arguing that its not broken because you can houserule it doesnt work. I can hosuerule anything, in any game. I can houserule that in Chess, my bishops can move straight and diagonal. That doesnt mean that Chess is broken, it means I broke it.
D&D houserules dont mean that D&D is fine, it means my houserules made it fine.

D&D RAW doesn't suck, it's flaw is that it is expected to cover too much ground while trying to be elegant and simple enough to work while carrying on decades of history and expected elements in the game. As far as that goes, I think it does a very decent job.

Also, I think too many people view Wizards as "I win" classes or fear CODzilla is because they (or their DMs) are way too into minmaxing and only play in extremely high levels (12 or higher).

The one real flaw I see with the RAW (Which again, doesn't suck) is that it doesn't scale very well going into high levels, and it doesn't stand up very well to players who abuse it's system to get extreme benefits.

Finally, allowing or disallowing elements of books beyond the SRD (Such as Divine Metamagic) is not really a houserule, it's using DM discretion as to what you allow into your system.

[Indon]

This isnt a thread for fix's, its about wether D&D is broken or not.

Well, really, it's not even very good at this, because nobody can agree on a criteria by which D&D would 'break'. Aside from that, the term itself is poorly-defined in the context.

Perhaps if the topic were "Are D&D mechanics too easily abusable," or "Is D&D easier to work with for a storyteller than other P&P RPG rulesets", but really, this thread topic is broken.:smalltongue:

[Rigeld2]

Also, I think too many people view Wizards as "I win" classes or fear CODzilla is because they (or their DMs) are way too into minmaxing and only play in extremely high levels (12 or higher).
Wizards start being awesome long before level 12. So do Clerics.


The one real flaw I see with the RAW (Which again, doesn't suck) is that it doesn't scale very well going into high levels, and it doesn't stand up very well to players who abuse it's system to get extreme benefits.
True. And that means that... high level play is broken in the core RAW. And that sucks.


Finally, allowing or disallowing elements of books beyond the SRD (Such as Divine Metamagic) is not really a houserule, it's using DM discretion as to what you allow into your system.
And? I dont need to leave core to show brokeness.

[Bouldering Jove]

Well, really, it's not even very good at this, because nobody can agree on a criteria by which D&D would 'break'. Aside from that, the term itself is poorly-defined in the context.
Here's a reasonable chunk of criteria: does Pun-Pun exist? Does min/maxing have the potential to completely upend any semblance of a playable game? Does a DM have to act as a rules arbiter and a censor of published material instead of just running the game and playing the rules as written?

Yes, he does. Yes, it does, either by single players completely dominating the game with outrageously powerful builds or by using the diplomacy rules to their fullest. Yes, a DM does, as nearly every post trying to defend D&D as not being broken has made clear.

[Innis Cabal]

your completly right. The DM's job is to make sure the rules are going smooth, that the game is going fine and nothing is wrong with the flow. Does pun pun exist? Well clearly it does since you brought it up. Does min/maxing up end the game? Only if your a poor DM that can't run with things that are going on in your game. Its very easy as a DM to throw the same thing at the player, and when a min/maxer goes against another min/maxer with DM behind it they lose. Only pun pun can beat the DM and any DM worth his salt wouldnt even let that happen in his game. Don't like house ruling? Fine, play another game. Rigeld2, ya think D&D 3.5 sucks? Don't play it. That hard to understand?

[Kultrum]

1. pun-pun exists because people spend too much time finding ways to abuse the system, they try to break the game
2. Min/Maxing is a players choice it is not forced on anyone
3. It says in the DMG that the DM is the final rule arbiter

[Innis Cabal]

i think its time to make a club Kultrum....the club of gaming reason

[Kultrum]

i think its time to make a club Kultrum....the club of gaming reason

Awesome, call yourself a founder of the club of gaming reason in your sig

[Rigeld2]

your completly right. The DM's job is to make sure the rules are going smooth, that the game is going fine and nothing is wrong with the flow. Does pun pun exist? Well clearly it does since you brought it up. Does min/maxing up end the game? Only if your a poor DM that can't run with things that are going on in your game. Its very easy as a DM to throw the same thing at the player, and when a min/maxer goes against another min/maxer with DM behind it they lose. Only pun pun can beat the DM and any DM worth his salt wouldnt even let that happen in his game. Don't like house ruling? Fine, play another game. Rigeld2, ya think D&D 3.5 sucks? Don't play it. That hard to understand?
Wow. Like I said, youre missing something.

I play D&D a lot. I like the system. I think it sucks that I have to houserule as much as I do, but overall its good after my houserules.

RAW, D&D sucks tho. Which is why I dont play it.

[Innis Cabal]

ok, that wasnt just at you so i'm not missing what your saying really, i just understand why you dont go to something that easier for you and more fun for you. Now you say you play alot but then you say you dont, im going to assume you mean you play house ruled D&D and not the RAW...which no one plays the RAW. It is impossible to play for a year without a single house rule.

And Kultrum, you also call yourself a founder and start looking for people that make alot of sense, lets see who we can get

[Rigeld2]

It is impossible to play for a year without a single house rule.
Not true. When I first started, I played for a long time without a single house rule. 2-3 years iirc. Now that I DM mostly, I have a 4 page document of houserules.

[Kultrum]

Not true. When I first started, I played for a long time without a single house rule. 2-3 years iirc. Now that I DM mostly, I have a 4 page document of houserules.

I respect the fact the you are making changes, as opposed to what some of the people on this thread have done [Scrubbed]

[Bouldering Jove]

your completly right. The DM's job is to make sure the rules are going smooth, that the game is going fine and nothing is wrong with the flow. Does pun pun exist? Well clearly it does since you brought it up. Does min/maxing up end the game? Only if your a poor DM that can't run with things that are going on in your game. Its very easy as a DM to throw the same thing at the player, and when a min/maxer goes against another min/maxer with DM behind it they lose. Only pun pun can beat the DM and any DM worth his salt wouldnt even let that happen in his game. Don't like house ruling? Fine, play another game. Rigeld2, ya think D&D 3.5 sucks? Don't play it. That hard to understand?
Why should the DM's job be to make sure the rules are smooth? Why are you insisting that everyone who wants to DM must have a potent understanding of rules balance issues, rather than simply a desire to create and run adventures for the other players?

The fact that the potential upset power of min/maxing can be countered by min/maxing on the part of the DM isn't really meaningful. The issue isn't that powerful characters exist, but that they steal the show where they do exist and end up detracting from the play experience of everyone else at the table. When a DM throws min/maxed foes at the party to "counter" the problem, they only make it worse, because now the power level of encountered threats is higher and the non-optimized players are contributing even less. I'd even go so far as to say that that's terrible DMing; instead of distributing the spotlight equally, the DM is making the optimized character steal the show.


1. pun-pun exists because people spend too much time finding ways to abuse the system, they try to break the game
2. Min/Maxing is a players choice it is not forced on anyone
3. It says in the DMG that the DM is the final rule arbiter
If the game breaks when people try to push its limits, then the game is broken. If players can completely upset the game by min/maxing, then the game is broken. If the game explicitly requires someone to apply rules patches rather than just play as written, then the game is broken.

Determining whether or not D&D is broken is, after all, the point of this thread. Telling people to stop criticizing the system is not particularly constructive.

[Kultrum]

If the game breaks when people try to push its limits, then the game is broken. If players can completely upset the game by min/maxing, then the game is broken. If the game explicitly requires someone to apply rules patches rather than just play as written, then the game is broken.

If i take my car and floor it down the freeway everyday (push it to its limits) it will die
If i remove all excess weight and add a more powerful engine ill be faster that most people and if i drag race i will win a lot
I have to take my car in for a tune up every once in a while
there for by your logic cars are broken
also how the heck do you write a rule that says not min/maxing without says "DM's, use your best judgment"

[Kultrum]

The fact that the potential upset power of min/maxing can be countered by min/maxing on the part of the DM isn't really meaningful. The issue isn't that powerful characters exist, but that they steal the show where they do exist and end up detracting from the play experience of everyone else at the table. When a DM throws min/maxed foes at the party to "counter" the problem, they only make it worse, because now the power level of encountered threats is higher and the non-optimized players are contributing even less. I'd even go so far as to say that that's terrible DMing; instead of distributing the spotlight equally, the DM is making the optimized character steal the show.

except the example was ment to show how to kill a showstealing char unless im mistaken

[Innis Cabal]

yes Bouldering Jove, perhaps you missed that part.....thats another medal for Kultrum....im just giving these away i guess....How is making something that will kill the optimizar faster then a leming in suicide season taking the spot light from the other players? It shows those players that what they are doing is right and the DM does not approve of the Min/Maxer trying to steal the show. And you have not yet answered my question why if you think D&D is broken you havent moved to another game.

[Bouldering Jove]

If i take my car and floor it down the freeway everyday (push it to its limits) it will die
If i remove all excess weight and add a more powerful engine ill be faster that most people and if i drag race i will win a lot
I have to take my car in for a tune up every once in a while
there for by your logic cars are broken
No, cars are physical objects subject to physical limitations. Game rules are abstract concepts which are not subject to deterioration from forces like friction. Good game design is all about making games that don't break.


also how the heck do you write a rule that says not min/maxing without says "DM's, use your best judgment"
How do you design rules that don't require individual judgment and don't allow for massive inequities? You could start by looking at every board game that's considered a classic, or even simply "good." Then you could look at the war games, and then you could look at the video games, and then you could look at the discussion surrounding game systems like Shadowrun 4E, Storyteller, GURPS, and so on.

No one said good game design was easy. But that's why it's important to try to get everything right and fix the problems before you sell it to customers.

[Innis Cabal]

well since D20 is the most supported type of game setting, with more 3rd party books then any other system i think that they are doing something right. And i would like to see you make a world spaning game company and make sure EVERY product was good before you sold it.

[Bears With Lasers]

make sure EVERY product was good before you sold it.

How about just one without anything ridiculous?

[Kultrum]

Lets do some math.
there are 52 unique base classes in 3.5
that means there are 2652 possible two class combinations
alright there are about 30 books in 3.5 lets say each has 10 feats (a major under statement count) that would be 300 feats
now if in 20 levels you get 7 feats thats 113657 possible two class+feats combos.
now lets allow for party combos. in a set 4 person party there are 166,872,493,043,020,495,201 possible party combos
now lets say they can get all they need out of 30 min with each combo it would take 9524685675971498.45 years to test all of them, before PrC
now wizards has said on a few occasions that D&D is not that profitable and that in the future they may drop it, if they tested all the combos they would have dropped it long ago.
also before you say that they shouldn't release so much material, remember that how they make money no $ = no D&D
also don't tell me they should have tested wizards more, they tested them extensively, as blaster, as they were intended, how were they to know that people would pervert them into what they are now?

[Kultrum]

wow i think i just killed every catgirl in a five mile radius

[Innis Cabal]

you need to give yourself another medal...and change your title to catgil muderer of the Club of Gaming reason...becuase you are going to be facing numerous life sentences

[ArmorArmadillo]

Not true. When I first started, I played for a long time without a single house rule. 2-3 years iirc. Now that I DM mostly, I have a 4 page document of houserules.

Now that I'm thinking about it, the fact that you need to houserule doesn't mean that the SRD is broken; the SRD is meant to be houseruled. The DMG has guides for creating spells, traps, nearly everything; in fact every player designed campaign is ultimately one big houserule.

Because DND is not like chess, it isn't a competitive game between players, it's a cooperative game in which the DM facilitates play and the players work out his creation.
A competitive game like chess needs solid, concrete rules because it uses perfect information and simple goals.
The rules of DnD are not like the rules of poker, they are meant as guidelines to help facilitate play and have no utility beyond that.

No, you could argue that this still doesn't make the SRD itself unbroken, but I really think that it is immaterial whether it is or is not; because the SRD isn't meant to hold the game together, only to help it along.

[Kultrum]

Now that I'm thinking about it, the fact that you need to houserule doesn't mean that the SRD is broken; the SRD is meant to be houseruled. The DMG has guides for creating spells, traps, nearly everything; in fact every player designed campaign is ultimately one big houserule.

Because DND is not like chess, it isn't a competitive game between players, it's a cooperative game in which the DM facilitates play and the players work out his creation.
A competitive game like chess needs solid, concrete rules because it uses perfect information and simple goals.
The rules of DnD are not like the rules of poker, they are meant as guidelines to help facilitate play and have no utility beyond that.

No, you could argue that this still doesn't make the SRD itself unbroken, but I really think that it is immaterial whether it is or is not; because the SRD isn't meant to hold the game together, only to help it along.

sir i welcome you to join the club of gaming reason

[Rigeld2]

Now that I'm thinking about it, the fact that you need to houserule doesn't mean that the SRD is broken; the SRD is meant to be houseruled. The DMG has guides for creating spells, traps, nearly everything; in fact every player designed campaign is ultimately one big houserule.
See, theres a difference between worldbuilding, and fixing glaring problems (like clarifying "familiarity"). If im fixing glaring problems (which at laest half of the 4 pages is) then its broken.

[Rigeld2]

sir i welcome you to join the club of gaming reason
I'm glad im not a member. It seems to me that you have to ignore the fact that there are problems to be a member.

Yes they can be fixed via houserules. No, that doesnt mean its not broken.

[Kultrum]

See, theres a difference between worldbuilding, and fixing glaring problems (like clarifying "familiarity"). If im fixing glaring problems (which at least half of the 4 pages is) then its broken.

I guess that depends on your opinion of "glaring problem" is. I think that clarifying familiarity as a mild annoyance not a game breaker

[Innis Cabal]

we dont ignore the problems, and i second you Kultrum, we see the problems as what they are, mistakes that Wizards didnt have time, effort, money, or staff to catch. Sorry they dont have the manpower to sit around and read every other book that came before and make sure they don't make anything better. We are being reasonable in that its
1) a game
2) yes there are problems, welcome to life
3) We change what we dont like, even if its balanced
4) House rules are a matter of fact in D&D, has been for a long time( and should it change i will go to another game, which alot of people here don't seem to get).
5) It is the job of the DM to make sure the rules work in his world, after all it is his world and he should be comfortable with whats going on
6) No one expects you to use every little peice of printed material thats out, and if you do they know(uncorrectly sadly) that your mature enough to handle what comes with it.

There is the short and long of it, i dont think we are ignoring "the facts" i think we are being reasonable and some people just dont like that, though you are one of the better ones on this thread

[Kultrum]

alright well im done for the night as my closing statement i shall point out that in order to "fully" test the game it would cost wizards (at the federal minimum wage) $429,696,669,585,778,181,073.30 and thats just D&D

[Viscount Einstrauss]

After reading the last handful of posts, I'm severely lost. It appears that everyone undoubtedly believes D&D to be, in some way, broken at this point by RAW, and thus permanently in need of house ruling to be playable before too long. The system ends up daffy by level 5 and the CR's are often based upon the ideal of at least two casters in the group semi-competently using their characters, so it's not unrealistic to imagine a wizard and a cleric leading a practically useless fighter along in a non-homebrewed game. I'd prefer a little more play testing by WotC as they create unecessarily large gaps and loopholes in RAW a lot, but it's also understandable that they're never going to catch everything since D&D is a game about infinite creativity- something no ammount of rules books could ever account for.

There's D&D for you. It's broken because it can't be fixed. It would just be nice if the creators did a little more to fill the gaps for us poor DM's.

[Rigeld2]

alright well im done for the night as my closing statement i shall point out that in order to "fully" test the game it would cost wizards (at the federal minimum wage) $429,696,669,585,778,181,073.30 and thats just D&D
How about one book? Thats all... just one book that doesnt introduce something insane.

[Innis Cabal]

one book? Complete mage/complete warrior/complete divine

[Rigeld2]

one book? Complete mage/complete warrior/complete divine
Complete Divine: Divine Metamagic (even worse when Libris Mortis is added in)
will edit in the other two when im more awake.

[Roland St. Jude]

alright well im done for the night as my closing statement i shall point out that in order to "fully" test the game it would cost wizards (at the federal minimum wage) $429,696,669,585,778,181,073.30 and thats just D&D

Huh? It would take neither the time nor dollar amount that you suggest to put out a better product. Folks over at the Wizards CO board routinely assess the strong and weak points of a product over the course of days and weeks after the product is released. People here and elsewhere have created some excellent system improvements and additions that, if adopted by WotC, would improve the game for everyone and not just those with access to certain boards.

Not every combination needs attention and the "weak" points and powerful combinations aren't that difficult to suss out. And some basic issues (like the varying power levels of the classes or the disparity between certain combat styles) are well-known by Wizards. (There's a quiz they've been giving would-be developers since the early days of 3.5, I think, that basically requires the candidate to pick out that cleric is the most powerful class and explain why.)

[Bouldering Jove]

well since D20 is the most supported type of game setting, with more 3rd party books then any other system i think that they are doing something right. And i would like to see you make a world spaning game company and make sure EVERY product was good before you sold it.
So success is proof of merit? Shall we apply that reasoning to, say, the Star Wars prequels vs. Firefly? Action and horror movies in general vs. arthouse films? Or perhaps to popular music?


Lets do some math.
there are 52 unique base classes in 3.5
that means there are 2652 possible two class combinations
alright there are about 30 books in 3.5 lets say each has 10 feats (a major under statement count) that would be 300 feats
now if in 20 levels you get 7 feats thats 113657 possible two class+feats combos.
now lets allow for party combos. in a set 4 person party there are 166,872,493,043,020,495,201 possible party combos
now lets say they can get all they need out of 30 min with each combo it would take 9524685675971498.45 years to test all of them, before PrC
now wizards has said on a few occasions that D&D is not that profitable and that in the future they may drop it, if they tested all the combos they would have dropped it long ago.
also before you say that they shouldn't release so much material, remember that how they make money no $ = no D&D
also don't tell me they should have tested wizards more, they tested them extensively, as blaster, as they were intended, how were they to know that people would pervert them into what they are now?
Spurious assumptions lead to spurious conclusions. I doubt that that much cumulative play time has been invested in D&D in general, let alone 3.5, yet we've come to understand imbalances in power anyway, not to mention the existence of things like the Hulking Hurler and Pun-Pun. The reason is that testing each and every combination is simply not necessary. People on the WotC character optimizers don't stumble across what works by chance, they read the published material and think about it. If its author had seriously thought about the implications of the Manipulate Form ability before its inclusion, Pun-Pun might not exist.


Now that I'm thinking about it, the fact that you need to houserule doesn't mean that the SRD is broken; the SRD is meant to be houseruled. The DMG has guides for creating spells, traps, nearly everything; in fact every player designed campaign is ultimately one big houserule.
The DMG has those options so that the DM doesn't have to make houserules to cover the creation of game elements.


Because DND is not like chess, it isn't a competitive game between players, it's a cooperative game in which the DM facilitates play and the players work out his creation.
A competitive game like chess needs solid, concrete rules because it uses perfect information and simple goals.
The rules of DnD are not like the rules of poker, they are meant as guidelines to help facilitate play and have no utility beyond that.

No, you could argue that this still doesn't make the SRD itself unbroken, but I really think that it is immaterial whether it is or is not; because the SRD isn't meant to hold the game together, only to help it along.
Making the rules functional in the first place is what facilitates play. The reason we play D&D rather than "let's pretend" is because we want a codified system to work with. The best way to help along the game, rather than sidetrack it into issues of game mechanics and balance, is to make those sidetracks unnecessary in the first place.


I guess that depends on your opinion of "glaring problem" is. I think that clarifying familiarity as a mild annoyance not a game breaker
We've seen in this thread standards for "familiarity" that range from Knowledge (Natural World) checks to years of character experience. For a druid player, the scope (and thus power) of their central wild shape ability completely hinges on this resolution, and as has been mentioned, the resolution of this issue governs whether the druid is genuinely better than a fighter at absolutely everything (or is simply much better in general). Anything with such dramatic impact on game balance is not just a "mild annoyance."


we dont ignore the problems, and i second you Kultrum, we see the problems as what they are, mistakes that Wizards didnt have time, effort, money, or staff to catch. Sorry they dont have the manpower to sit around and read every other book that came before and make sure they don't make anything better. We are being reasonable in that its
1) a game
2) yes there are problems, welcome to life
3) We change what we dont like, even if its balanced
4) House rules are a matter of fact in D&D, has been for a long time( and should it change i will go to another game, which alot of people here don't seem to get).
5) It is the job of the DM to make sure the rules work in his world, after all it is his world and he should be comfortable with whats going on
6) No one expects you to use every little peice of printed material thats out, and if you do they know(uncorrectly sadly) that your mature enough to handle what comes with it.

There is the short and long of it, i dont think we are ignoring "the facts" i think we are being reasonable and some people just dont like that, though you are one of the better ones on this thread
What exactly is being reasonable? I certainly don't think that being content to pay for something you'll need to fix is reasonable. Reasonable behavior is to prefer the things that aren't broken over the things that are. Expecting better from the things you pay for is not "being unreasonable," it's being an intelligent consumer.

[Bears With Lasers]

one book? Complete mage/complete warrior/complete divine

Complete Divine has Divine Metamagic and the absolutely RIDICULOUS Relic rules. Complete Warrior's most glaring flaw is the Hulking Hurler, plus the falling-object-damage table in the very back. Complete Mage has Arcane Fusion and Greater Arcane Fusion, which can get ridiculous, plus can power an infinite-spells loop in combination with some other stuff. It also has Metamagic Spell Trigger, once only an artificer/incantatrix class feature, availible as a feat. It's the best of the lot, though.

[Rigeld2]

Thanks BWL. Now I dont have to caffienate and stay up... even tho I probably will anyway.

[Variable Arcana]

we dont ignore the problems, and i second you Kultrum, we see the problems as what they are, mistakes that Wizards didnt have time, effort, money, or staff to catch.
Good grief. This distinguishes you from no other poster in this thread -- every single poster agrees that the issues under discussion are mistakes. (Except, apparently, the original poster, who is, apparently, mad that people are trying to correct these mistakes.)

Since everyone agrees to that... what the heck are you yelling about? Why on earth would it burn you up inside that people want to discuss how best to correct these mistakes and oversights?

You do understand that the vast majority of these posters are trying to "fix" what's "broken" because they like D&D, right? Because they want to play the game and not have things go crazy when the party has finally earned a reasonably high level?

[belboz]

I want to say a couple of words about the whole "If you think min/maxing breaks the game, just don't do it, and don't play with anyone who does" argument.

I don't like min/maxing when it's used at the expense of the development of an interesting character. But telling people they shouldn't min/max to keep the game un-broken... I don't really think it's fair to players. It's a weird thing to ask a player to deliberately play a weaker suit than they have. It requires a careful, and generally un-fun, balancing act: Just how weak do I have to make myself?

Think about other games. Suppose that, instead of having handicaps in golf, the best players were simply asked to "not try so hard". Or suppose that boxing regularly featured games between ordinary Joes and the world heavyweight champion, balanced by the champion being asked to "go easy." Or poker tournaments where the best players were told to lose deliberately a bit to even things up.

None of these really sound fair or fun for anyone involved. The weaker player feals condescended to, and the stronger player has to do this weird "just how well should I play to make this balanced?" act.

This doesn't change when you substitute "player with a stronger class" for "stronger player". A system should support any reasonable use of the rules.

Note that, like lots of other people in the "there are broken parts of D&D" camp, I *like* D&D. But I do think that the RAW has serious problems, that require considerable house-ruling (like a lot of the work that's being done over in Homebrew) to solve.

[Indon]

Or suppose that boxing regularly featured games between ordinary Joes and the world heavyweight champion, balanced by the champion being asked to "go easy."

Except D&D isn't competitive; it's more like a boxing spar than a real match, in which case YES, the person who is better should go easier on the person who isn't.

What does your gaming group do when you have a player new to the genre who doesn't know how to min-max? Show him up constantly with your superior knowledge of the rules, sapping all the fun out of his game? I hope not. You take a back seat, actively if neccessary, to make sure the new player can take a part in the game. Does this make the game unfun for you to do? No. You aren't losing just by letting someone else have fun. You aren't competing for a limited fun resource pool that anyone has to horde all for themselves through optimal gameplay.

The fun in optimization is seeing what happens when you do it. But most of the time, you can already _tell_ what will happen when you do it, and it wouldn't even make the game fun. This doesn't mean there's nothing wrong with optimization, even significant min-maxing; but the entire gaming group should be on the same page in regards to the level of powergaming that the campaign will have. Players should coordinate with each other regarding basic character concepts in order to facilitate game enjoyment and balance.

But, yeah. We still haven't agreed on a definition of what constitutes a 'broken' game. We never will, because it's simply too fuzzy a term. I'd propose we instead, say, compare it with other pen and paper RP systems in regards to things like adjudication maintenance (how much of a storyteller's job is tracking the rules), rules flexibility, ease of creativity, modularity, etc.

I feel that would be preferable to an argument whom I suspect everyone involved realizes by now will go no further than it did since what, page 4?

[Viscount Einstrauss]

D&D isn't competitive? Since when? Last I checked, I DM specifically to kill my players in new and fascinating ways. The players are only being cooperative with each other, not me.

[Saph]

Saying that because you've never had problems with the system it's fine is a logical fallacy. It proves nothing, so no matter how many times you say it you will never have any impact. Just because your Pinto has never exploded does not mean that the Pinto is the definitive pinnacle of car engineering.

Saying that you can't get the system to work for you and therefore it must be the system's fault is also a logical fallacy.

To use your own example: let's say that you drive a Pinto and it explodes. You buy another Pinto, and that one explodes. You buy another Pinto, and that one explodes too. You could conclude that the problem's with the Pinto.

However, if living right next to you there is an entire neighborhood of people who've all been driving Pintos for fifteen years and never had any of them explode once . . . then maybe the problem is somewhere else.

- Saph

[Rigeld2]

However, if living right next to you there is an entire neighborhood of people who've all been driving Pintos for fifteen years and never had any of them explode once . . . then maybe the problem is somewhere else.
But see... those other Pintos have exploded. Everyone just changes the local laws of physics so it doesnt seem like it.

Just because you can fix it with house rules doesnt mean its not broken.

[Kultrum]

hmmm... lets see
Roland: My point was to say they can't catch everything and to give the guy over at WotC a break. It was meant to say to the people asking for a fully tested perfect game that its impossible, using numbers
Belboz: I mean not to min/max at the expense of the development of an interesting character
Viscount: no, no, bad DM, bad. (don't tell the players our secrets)
Jove: remember humans are imperfect and thus will not catch everything, maybe he thought about the implications but did not think it would be used in such a "creative" way, also familiarity was deliberately left wide to interpretation and to clarify it took like two minutes and thus was a mild annoyance

[Rigeld2]

hmmm... lets see
Roland: My point was to say they can't catch everything and to give the guy over at WotC a break. It was meant to say to the people asking for a fully tested perfect game that its impossible, using numbers
A number of people on the Opt. boards have come forward and said "I will test your next product for free before publication to make sure you cant make any more pun-pun like builds." or something to that effect. None of them have ever been contacted. All theyd need is a few days with it, and they could "playtest" it more than WoTC ever has.

Belboz: I mean not to min/max at the expense of the development of an interesting character
You think people like me do that? You're wrong. I optimize because I like to. I role-play because I like to. I combine them because theyre both something I like to do.

Jove: remember humans are imperfect and thus will not catch everything, maybe he thought about the implications but did not think it would be used in such a "creative" way, also familiarity was deliberately left wide to interpretation and to clarify it took like two minutes and thus was a mild annoyance
Deliberately left wide open... sure it was.
Post your two minute fix? Guarantee its breakable.

[Saph]

But see... those other Pintos have exploded. Everyone just changes the local laws of physics so it doesnt seem like it. Just because you can fix it with house rules doesnt mean its not broken.

I play D&D without any houserules of note and don't have problems. My group play D&D without houserules and don't have problems. So do many others on these forums.

The people who say "If you play D&D without massive houseruling, your game will be broken and unfun!" are wrong - simple as that.

- Saph

[Innis Cabal]

another person that gets it, its only broken if your DM lets it be. Don't try to pull physical things into a game that has no bearing on physics or reason, that kills cat girls and some people would like to see them live. Ya it dosnt always make sense but even if people are willing to show WoTC that they can fix it they can only hire so many people and put them on the pay roll before it gets to be to much.

[Kultrum]

Post your two minute fix? Guarantee its breakable.

for starters if you read this thread you will see that i did in fact already post my fix. then someone said how they would break it. and i fixed that problem.
also breakable-able to be broken, can be broken through intent if you try to brake some thing its no longer the manufacturers fault if it brakes

[Dausuul]

My anecdotal argument...

I created a druid once.

This druid was 8th level. Hardly crazy high-level territory. I did not design her with any intention of "breaking" the game; I simply came up with a concept for the character (a mounted caster riding a tiger animal companion) and implemented it in what I thought was a sensible and effective fashion. I took a level in Beastmaster, figuring that would help my companion be able to stand up in combat.

Within the first session playing this druid, it became clear that my animal companion was tougher and more effective in melee than the party's melee specialists. Just the animal companion, mind you! I scrapped the character because she was making everyone else look pathetic.

This is why I consider the D&D rules broken: Because one player can, with the best of intentions and no desire to steal the spotlight, create a character that's horrendously overpowered compared to the other party members. As I say, I got rid of the character as soon as I realized how broken she was... but that was still a session of making everyone else feel ineffectual, plus the disruption of having to create another character and work him into the game. And neither I nor the DM saw the problem coming.

[Counterspin]

Umm, all of that crazily expensive play testing that Kultrum talks about, it's been done, by the players after publication. Kultrum's impossible testing has happened and when people come here to the boards to announce the results of their playtesting he tells them that nothing is wrong and that that level of playtesting is impossibly expensinve.

[Arbitrarity]

I introduce to you... Gimpy, the gimped kobold!

Duh duh duh.

Gimpy uses the elite array, in conjunction with the venerable age modifiers, as well as the kobold racial penalties, and the commoner class.

Commoner 20

Str: 1 (originally 8, put a point in.)
Dex: 4 (originally 10)
Con: 1 (originally 11)
Int: 15 (originally 12)
Wis: 16 (originally 13)
Cha: 22 (originally 15, put 4 points in)

Feats are spell penetration, greater spell penetration, spell focus abjuration, greater spell focus abjuration, alertness, skill focus basketweaving, skill focus preform (rap), Frail flaw, spell focus necromancy.

Craft: Basketweaving: 28
Preform: Rap: 32
Speaks all languages.

Hp: 1

Wields a full plate, a +1 animated tower shield, and TWF with bastard swords. He can't move, his AC is 21

Attacks: -19/-24 off hand -23
damage 1d8-5.

He can't hit a gelatinous cube except on a 20.

Example of min-maxing gimpiness.

[Innis Cabal]

what was the melee specialist in your party Dausuul, becuase i have never seen te animal compainion do that when the fighter was played by a competent player or if the melee specialisty didnt so silly things like go chained fighter. Why did he take all those feats since they will do nothing for him in the long run, and how does that show the brokeness of the game since that build sucks

[Counterspin]

The people who say "If you play D&D without massive houseruling, your game will be broken and unfun!" are wrong - simple as that.

- Saph

Stop saying that, by all that's reasonable! Who is it that says this? I certainly don't, and I'm tired of hearing it.
I love D&D, and I play in a game with no houserules, I run games with no houserules, and thus far I've had no problems. The purpose of rules is so that the DM will have to make a bare minimum of rules decisions during a game. Not all DMs have spent years running games, new people come into the hobby, and those people deserve rules which, as written, prevent abuse.
The rules are restrictions, they set barriers because some things can ruin a game. We come up with things which theoretically can or have ruined games, and the response is "I've never seen it."
It doesn't matter that you haven't seen every single way in which the rules are weak, poorly worded, or easily perverted. They could still be better. New GMs, and frankly the rest of us on our slow days, deserve them to be better.
Why do people spend all this time fighting against improvements, I've never understood it. The forums exist to talk about D&D, yet every time you have a discussion about systemic issues, a bunch of people come to tell you that roleplaying and DM intervention render your discussion moot, despite the fact you're talking about something with the presumption that roleplaying and DM intervention is excluded. That's what RAW means, not taking into consideration the DM and house rules.

[ZekeArgo]

what was the melee specialist in your party Dausuul, becuase i have never seen te animal compainion do that when the fighter was played by a competent player or if the melee specialisty didnt so silly things like go chained fighter. Why did he take all those feats since they will do nothing for him in the long run, and how does that show the brokeness of the game since that build sucks

You may want to lookup a "tiger" in the MM and check out the Pounce special ability. After that, check out the bonuses said creature would recieve for being the companion of an 8th level druid.

Yeah, will definatly outclass a fighter.

[Rigeld2]

I play D&D without any houserules of note and don't have problems. My group play D&D without houserules and don't have problems. So do many others on these forums.
Nevermind, I'm done.

[Saph]

The rules are restrictions, they set barriers because some things can ruin a game. We come up with things which theoretically can or have ruined games, and the response is "I've never seen it."

Correct.


It doesn't matter that you haven't seen every single way in which the rules are weak, poorly worded, or easily perverted. They could still be better.

Along with everything else in the world, yes.


New GMs, and frankly the rest of us on our slow days, deserve them to be better.

*shrug* If you say so.

Now let me give you your answer:


We come up with things which theoretically can or have ruined games

Yes, you do. And you know what my response is? That and $3.00 will buy me a cup of coffee. All your theories are interesting, and I'll be sure to read them, but until they actually affect my game, or until I see a good argument as to why they will affect my game, then as far as I'm concerned they're worth exactly as much any other opinion I read on the Internet. Even then, I'll put more weight on stories like Dausuul's, because he's telling me about something that actually happened.

"I've never seen it" can mean that the speaker's inexperienced about a problem. It can also mean that the speaker doesn't HAVE that problem, and is trying to tell you something.

- Saph

[Bouldering Jove]

"I've never seen it happen in my games" is not a valid argument in this discussion. I could run a game consisting of nothing but fighters stomping on kobolds, and I'm sure I wouldn't run into any gamebreaking issues. So what? I can roll my eyes at people talking about spellcaster balance and say "That isn't affecting my game," but we're not discussing any individual game, we're discussing the rules as written. It's certainly possible to drive a Pinto without any trouble, but that has no bearing whatsoever on the car's problems.

Furthermore, anecdotes are generally less valuable in these conversations than analysis. In my game, a druid is roughly equal in power to a fighter and a ranger, but that has everything to do with how that druid's being played (which could generously be described as "under par"). It works both ways. If someone says "The wizard in my game is destroying every encounter singlehandedly," that could be because wizards are overpowered, or because the rest of the party is making poor decisions, or because the DM is only using enemies with weak will saves, or even because someone's misinterpreted the rules (misunderstanding spell resistance, saves, how metamagic works, spells per day, anything). We can't know what's really going on unless we break down every relevant detail, to the point where we're better served looking at the relevant factors in the abstract.

[Marius]

we dont ignore the problems, and i second you Kultrum, we see the problems as what they are, mistakes that Wizards didnt have time, effort, money, or staff to catch. Sorry they dont have the manpower to sit around and read every other book that came before and make sure they don't make anything better.

Every book?! The PHB is one of the most broken books in d&d and many of those mistakes were already on the 3.0 edition!
It's not like all the broken parts are obscure prestige classes combinations, the base classes are already broken.

[Innis Cabal]

thats really an opinion now isnt it? Yes there are some stronger then others but i really don't see a glaring issue if the DM does his job. And if you think its exclusive to 3.0 and 3.5 your fooling yourself. Second ed class's were craxy, look at the rogue...or the Bard! I played them both to the exclusion of the other class's...oh i get XP for gold? No no, i dont need items thanks, ill just take that in gold pieces please....ya thats really balanced...

[Viscount Einstrauss]

If the DM does his job, he's houseruling. Simply not including certain aspects of the game is houseruling just the same as revamping something. So long as you're doing something other than running a pre-built module, you're houseruling to an extent in order to build a world. D&D is vastly built this way. It's going to be broken across the board because the DM is supposed to take time to change things to suit the world they're building.

But, again, it would be nice if Wizards themselves would notice material so very broken that they can't really be included into a game without a major rewrite to keep it from being abusable. Sure, a lot of stuff's going to be broken and need DM-fiat just because it's part of world-building and challenge setting. But there's no reason for things like, say, the polymorph spells being so ridiculously overpowered, or the monk getting so few contributory tactics. Just a little revision on key problems like those, it's all I ask.

[Saph]

We can't know what's really going on unless we break down every relevant detail, to the point where we're better served looking at the relevant factors in the abstract.

I've yet to see anyone get even close to breaking down "every relevant detail". What I'm seeing more and more, instead, is people writing posts that start off with "Well, everyone says that casters are imbalanced, so I thought that . . ." So not only now are people complaining about imbalances that they haven't tried out themselves, but they're complaining about imbalances just on other people's say-so!

Look, let me tell you a story. I used to hang out on a different D&D forum a few years ago. Just like all D&D forums, the posters there spent half there time arguing about the relative power of the classes, and there was a widespread agreement that melee damage dealers were way better than anything else. I spent a while trying to convince them otherwise, that casters were better than they thought. Waste of time. They 'knew' that Barbarians were the most powerful class in D&D because they could deal the most damage, and that was all there was to it. Eventually I got bored, stopped arguing, and drifted away.

Now I hang out on this forum, and everyone's constantly talking about how powerful Wizards and Druids are. I chat with another group, and they're telling me about how overpowered Scouts and Warlocks are. And some day I'll leave this forum, and maybe come back in a year or two more, and when I do I'll be told that now the top class is supposed to be something else, and the game is unplayably broken because Bards are just so good that nobody can stand against them.

Do you see now why I'm not all that impressed by 'analysis' of D&D? After twenty different guys tell you, each with perfect seriousness, that they've 'analysed' the game, and you look at their results and see twenty different answers, then you start figuring out that maybe D&D 'analysis' isn't quite as reliable as its proponents think it is. A D&D game has way more variables than most people realise. There's the DM, the DM's style, the world, the other characters in the party, whether common sense trumps RAW or not, the level of co-operation, the amount of houserules, the style of game, the difficulty of the game, the cheese level, the amount of competition, and a dozen other things. Whenever people try to analyse D&D they end up making assumptions about all of these, and so what looks reasonable for them can be utterly wrong when applied to another group's game.

Which leads you to people talking about how D&D is "broken", when what they really mean is "I think D&D is broken becaue of the way we play it" or "I think D&D is broken because some other guy said so". How do you deal with this kind of unreliability, where everyone's using different definitions and half of what you hear is just hearsay? You rely on what IS reliable - your own experience. If you find a game to be a certain way, why does it matter what someone else thinks of it?

And that's why "It's not a problem in my game" is not only a valid argument, but one of the most sensible things you'll hear - because it's based on real experience rather than a theoretical argument from someone on the other side of the world whom you don't know, who knows and cares nothing about your group or your game, and who is quite likely just repeating what he heard from someone else anyway.

- Saph

[Kultrum]

*clap, clap, clap*

[Bears With Lasers]

Saph--some people are just really bad at analyzing D&D. Like people who think Scouts and Warlocks are zomg teh uber.

If you want people who are good at analyzing D&D, and have the results to prove it, go to the Character Optimization boards. Those are people you can probably trust about class power.

[belboz]

Except D&D isn't competitive; it's more like a boxing spar than a real match, in which case YES, the person who is better should go easier on the person who isn't.

So perhaps boxing was a bad example. But pickup team sports also tend to work best when the people (even the people *within* a team) are moderately balanced in skill. As someone who's always been terrible at team sports, I can tell you that it's no fun to feel like you're a tag-along. And while it might be sort of sweet for far better teammates to occasionally deliberately stand back and give you the chance to shine, it loses its luster pretty quickly (you're still not *really* contributing; other people are helping contribute to an *illusion* that you're a valuable team member). And I imagine it's not much fun for them, either.



What does your gaming group do when you have a player new to the genre who doesn't know how to min-max? Show him up constantly with your superior knowledge of the rules, sapping all the fun out of his game? I hope not. You take a back seat, actively if neccessary, to make sure the new player can take a part in the game. Does this make the game unfun for you to do? No. You aren't losing just by letting someone else have fun. You aren't competing for a limited fun resource pool that anyone has to horde all for themselves through optimal gameplay.


Well, I'm not much of a min/maxer (on those fairly rare occasions I've been a player) either. But honestly, although it certainly makes sense to coddle a novice a bit for the first few sessions, in my experience keeping it up for too long really isn't fun for anyone--*including* the novice, who feels condescended to. You really want to be in a situation where you're treating players equally and fairly as soon as possile.

What I'd really like (and what, to a certain extent, I can get in D&D using house-rules) is a case where a few min/max tricks just won't *let* you run away with the game. Yeah, an experienced player is always going to be a bit better at stuff than a novice, but with the wilder exploits toned down, an intelligent novice will still be able to contribute--*without* the experienced player having to constantly worry about striking a balance between "self-nerfing" and running away with the game.

Substitute "druid" for "experienced" and "paladin" for "novice" in the above to get much the same point.

[ken-do-nim]

And some day I'll leave this forum, and maybe come back in a year or two more, and when I do I'll be told that now the top class is supposed to be something else, and the game is unplayably broken because Bards are just so good that nobody can stand against them.


Saph, don't leave us! :smallbiggrin:

I hope to make my current gaming group think that monks are broken. Once I buy my monk's belt and tack on the new belt power in Magic Item Compendium that allows enlarge person 1/day for 10 minutes, I'll be doing 6d8 damage per hit when enlarged (I'm 15th level).

Seriously, most of the monk shortcomings will go away if I ever get up to my Wealth-By-Level thanks to the Magic Item Compendium. The scout's headband will give me true sight, the cloudwalker anklets continuous air walk, there's a vest that gives freedom of movement 3/day, and there are gauntlets that make all your attacks bypass silver damage reduction. There's still the good-aligned problem; I'm thinking that maybe I can get a scorpion kama (a weapon that FINALLY does unarmed strike damage) and make it holy. If I could change the material to cold-iron forged, I think I'd be all done!

Edit: Of course, my BAB will always be 5 less than the big melee types, but that's not a bad trade for the monk tremendous movement rate & flurry. Hey, there's also bracers which improve the flurry 3/day... and ki straps have returned to improve stunning fist dc ...

To sum up, I think WOTC may be closing the class balance gap with magic items. At least for my character.

[Variable Arcana]

Look, let me tell you a story. I used to hang out on a different D&D forum a few years ago. Just like all D&D forums, the posters there spent half there time arguing about the relative power of the classes, and there was a widespread agreement that melee damage dealers were way better than anything else. I spent a while trying to convince them otherwise, that casters were better than they thought. Waste of time. They 'knew' that Barbarians were the most powerful class in D&D because they could deal the most damage, and that was all there was to it. Eventually I got bored, stopped arguing, and drifted away.

Now I hang out on this forum, and everyone's constantly talking about how powerful Wizards and Druids are. I chat with another group, and they're telling me about how overpowered Scouts and Warlocks are. And some day I'll leave this forum, and maybe come back in a year or two more, and when I do I'll be told that now the top class is supposed to be something else, and the game is unplayably broken because Bards are just so good that nobody can stand against them.

Do you see now why I'm not all that impressed by 'analysis' of D&D? After twenty different guys tell you, each with perfect seriousness, that they've 'analysed' the game, and you look at their results and see twenty different answers, then you start figuring out that maybe D&D 'analysis' isn't quite as reliable as its proponents think it is.
I agree with your argument -- just not with the conclusion you *seem* to want to reach.

You *seem* to want to conclude that the relative power of the classes is somehow inherently unknowable. (That or you've returned to the "I fixed it, therefore it was never broken" fallacy... hard to tell.)

I, too, am frustrated by the theory and analytical arguments that always seem to compare a fully tricked out example of class X to a slapdash, haphazardy thrown-together caricature of class Y. No amount of abstract theory can stand up to experimental evidence.

The Battle of the Core Classes (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=36559&page=10#post2354753) is going to be an interesting look at class balance at level 10 in 1-on-1 PvP battle.

And I've just started a Wizard v. Fighter Arena Grudge Match (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=40075) (inspired partly by this thread, and partly by the frustration of not getting to see the ongoing matches in the Battle of the Core Classes thread).

Feel free to find one of your friends who thinks that warlocks or scouts are the most powerful, and send them over. It's even possible that the right Warlock build might work quite well -- there are only so many things you might want to do in a limited setting like Arena Combat, ameliorating the Warlock's usual lack of depth. For all I know, a Warlock with Voracious Dispelling and Devour Magic invocation might do quite well against the wizard.

[Saph]

Saph, don't leave us!

Don't worry, I'll be sticking around a while longer. :)


The Battle of the Core Classes is going to be an interesting look at class balance at level 10 in 1-on-1 PvP battle.

Oh, I agree. I think the results will tell us a fair bit - for a RAW core-only solo level 10 arena battle.

The problem comes when you try and measure the classes in a non-PvP setup, which is much more difficult and depends hugely on the kind of game the DM is running.

- Saph

[Viscount Einstrauss]

This is why I play rogues/tricked out skill monkeys. There isn't a DM alive that can spring a campaign on me I can't play well.

[ZekeArgo]

This is why I play rogues/tricked out skill monkeys. There isn't a DM alive that can spring a campaign on me I can't play well.

Well other than the "Ooze and construct-filled tomb of undead"

[Valairn]

Look what I started here! My baby thread just keeps growing.

/hug

[Dan_Hemmens]

I agree with your argument -- just not with the conclusion you *seem* to want to reach.

You *seem* to want to conclude that the relative power of the classes is somehow inherently unknowable. (That or you've returned to the "I fixed it, therefore it was never broken" fallacy... hard to tell.)

I think it's more that you can't tell what will be useful in any given game, and that so much comes down to playstyle cultures between groups that it's impossible to compare.

For example: Wizards are obscenely powerful so long as you're always willing to let them actually prepare their spells. On the other hand if you have multiple encounters per day, make sleeping complicated, and remind them that spellbooks are cumbersome and vulnerable, they get a lot less powerful.


I, too, am frustrated by the theory and analytical arguments that always seem to compare a fully tricked out example of class X to a slapdash, haphazardy thrown-together caricature of class Y. No amount of abstract theory can stand up to experimental evidence.

The Battle of the Core Classes (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=36559&page=10#post2354753) is going to be an interesting look at class balance at level 10 in 1-on-1 PvP battle.

Except that one on one PvP battles are not what it's about.


And I've just started a Wizard v. Fighter Arena Grudge Match (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=40075) (inspired partly by this thread, and partly by the frustration of not getting to see the ongoing matches in the Battle of the Core Classes thread).

Feel free to find one of your friends who thinks that warlocks or scouts are the most powerful, and send them over. It's even possible that the right Warlock build might work quite well -- there are only so many things you might want to do in a limited setting like Arena Combat, ameliorating the Warlock's usual lack of depth. For all I know, a Warlock with Voracious Dispelling and Devour Magic invocation might do quite well against the wizard.


But that's not the issue.

The problem is that a Wizard with a Fly spell can make a Rogues high Climb check irrelevant. However this is true only if you need to climb rarely and you get some degree of advanced warning.

And that's the problem.

[ZekeArgo]

I think it's more that you can't tell what will be useful in any given game, and that so much comes down to playstyle cultures between groups that it's impossible to compare.

Perhaps true, but there are always baslines where you can just go and say: X, X, and X are just *better* in all of these situations.


For example: Wizards are obscenely powerful so long as you're always willing to let them actually prepare their spells. On the other hand if you have multiple encounters per day, make sleeping complicated, and remind them that spellbooks are cumbersome and vulnerable, they get a lot less powerful.Heres the thing: wizards make all of these things a whole heck of a lot easier. Multiple encounters per day = 4, which is standard. Deviate from that and you put the whole group at risk, but thats also a playstyle thing. "complicated sleeping" is solved by Rope Trick, and cumbersome spellbooks are overcome by spellbook enhancements, tattooed books (al-la complete mage) and extradimensional spaces.

Even then, with the ability to rely on tattooed books and spell mastery the wizard is able to make sure if he gets seperated from his book hes either able to get it back or get to a spare copy. Or at the very least out of the predicament hes in.

And thats without even going into contingent spells.


The problem is that a Wizard with a Fly spell can make a Rogues high Climb check irrelevant. However this is true only if you need to climb rarely and you get some degree of advanced warning.Fly isn't the spell a wizard would use though. It's phantom steed, or if he doesn't like that image then overland flight. Those last hours/level and can be put up pretty much all day (other than rest times) if extended at level 8 or so.

Not only that, but the ability to create scrolls (while out and about with a quill of rapid scrivening no less) lets you keep things in reserve in case something comes up outside of your normal "adventuring" selection.

[ken-do-nim]

The Battle of the Core Classes (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=36559&page=10#post2354753) is going to be an interesting look at class balance at level 10 in 1-on-1 PvP battle.



I have to totally disagree. It only measures combat prowess, and even that only to some extent. For instance, we all know that the poor bard will lose every fight. Yet if I'm in adventure and we capture a badguy and we need somebody to pry some information from him, a fascinate/suggestion would be most helpful. Or if there are traps around, I want the rogue. Please don't read anything about class balance into the Core Class Battle.