3.5 is not broken

[Valairn]

Please stop trying to "fix" it. It isn't broken. If you have alternatives to the system feel free to discuss those.

Sorry just had to get that off my chest. Nothing to see here.

[Zincorium]

First, those of us who wish to alter 3.5 as we see fit to improve our game experience are specifically allowed to do so. And it is insulting to tell us to stop without us asking your opinion on the matter.

As far as 'broken', not much is broken. Not broken does not mean it can't be improved somewhat with a few tweaks.

Lastly, many of us do play other game systems. I'm rather fond of Alternity and D20 modern, myself. But we also play D&D 3.5. We want to have fun doing so. Also, 'nothing to see here' would imply that no one needed to see your post, and thus you wasted your time and the server's memory by posting at all.

[KoDT69]

So you really don't consider the fact that wizards are "win buttons" or divine metamagic persisted spells kind of stuff broken? :smallyuk:

[Catch]

Please stop trying to "fix" it. It isn't broken.

What's your evidence?

[Tormsskull]

Please stop trying to "fix" it. It isn't broken. If you have alternatives to the system feel free to discuss those.


Take into consideration that everyone has their own viewpoint. When someone suggests a "fix" for some aspect of 3.5 take into consideration that it is their opinion that that specific aspect is broken.

And they may be right. In my groups I could make one race more mechanically powerful than another without giving it an LA, but offset that mechanical advantage with a Role-playing restriction and it wouldn't be "broken" because we RP a lot and that RP restricition will actually have an effect.

In campaigns I DM I often throw the sorceror out and make Wizards spontaneous casters. They lose their familiar for this. Most people would probably say that this is "broken". But if you saw how my group plays (mostly low level, very limited magic, magic is frowned upon in the world, anyone who actually plays a wizards inevitably plays a blaster) they might change their mind.

So, all in all, when someone says "suchandsuch is broken" and they don't provide a reason/evidence why it is broken in their campaign, you might want to ask them "Why do you feel suchandsuch is broken?" I don't think anyone is egotistical enough (well, some of the posters are, but the majority aren't) to say any one thing is "broken" in all cases.

[Indon]

Please stop trying to "fix" it. It isn't broken.

That all depends on what a person wants to do with the system, doesn't it?

[Kultrum]

broken or not broken is up to the DM. Any DM worth his salt can stop a player from braking the system, and if they can't they shouldn't be DMing. If a char brakes, talk to them out of game if they refuse to back down... kill their char plain and simple if they get pissed you prolly didn't want to play with them to begin with

[JellyPooga]

So you really don't consider the fact that wizards are "win buttons" or divine metamagic persisted spells kind of stuff broken? :smallyuk:

I don't.

Personally I think Divine Metamagic Persisted spells are fairly balanced (considering that you have to burn practically all your Turn attempts for the day for 1 Persistant spell AND you need to burn 2 Feats to do it).

I also think that Wizards are not the 'Win button' that you might think they are. O.k. In ideal circumstances a Wizard is very powerful, more so than any other character perhaps. However, when is a character ever in its ideal circumstance? Even in the hypothetical 1-on-1 duel between characters, whoever is in their ideal situation is going to 'win' (a Rogue fighting a Wizard, for example, would win if circumstances were such that he could steal the wizards spellbook a day or so in advance).

OP - Having said that...No system is without its flaws. I am a big fan of houseruling any game I play (whether it be a roleplaying game, board game, whatever), but that's not to say others should. If you're happy with the game as it is, play it as it is. If you're not, change it.

[ken-do-nim]

Please stop trying to "fix" it. It isn't broken. If you have alternatives to the system feel free to discuss those.

Sorry just had to get that off my chest. Nothing to see here.

Valairn, I hear that a lot, but everyone who has ever said that has turned out to be a player. Valairn, may I ask if you have ever DM'd 3.5? Esp. past level 5?

[KoDT69]

Heh, burn all the turn attemps and if you face no undead...
Anyway, I personally have no issue with allowing any/all content into my campaign. Divine spankings can fix any PC trying to tempt fate and break the integrity of the campaign. I seem to recall a scenario where somebody dropped thier keys and they rolled into the underdark... Karma-riffic!

[Clementx]

Valairn, I hear that a lot, but everyone who has ever said that has turned out to be a player. Valairn, may I ask if you have ever DM'd 3.5? Esp. past level 5?
Exactly. The more you dig into DnD 3.5, the things that bother new readers at the beginning turn out to be balanced, and you start seeing the completely crazy and poorly designed stuff. This gets worse with every supplement, as they are increasingly poorly written, poorly researched for interactions with existing mechanics, and focused on filling in "gaps" in player abilities (free stackable turning from Nightsticks powering Divine Persistent Metamagic for almost no cost is an example of all three points). Power creep is needed for book sales. It is not needed for actual gaming.

The core DnD material is mostly fine, if convoluted with the occasional oversight and requiring the proper touch of common sense. It still requires a careful DM to adjudicate situations and when introducing new material. It does NOT by any means run itself without rewriting and supervision. That places it somewhere in the salvageable region between "wonderful" and "what a ****ing mess".

[Viscount Einstrauss]

You could very easily put the core classes on a scale from best to worst. Easily. If this is at all possible, it's because the system isn't balanced. It doesn't mean players can't have fun with it, but it benefits quite a bit from a DM that sits down to do what they can to rebalance it.

Proof (I know some people will probably disagree at least a little with this, but the general slide should be reasonable looking)-
Wizard>Sorcerer>Cleric>Druid>Rogue>Bard>Fighter>Ranger>Paladin>Barbarian>Monk

[Tormsskull]

*snip*

I agree with 90% of your post. Specifically about the power creep in supplements, the fact that a DM is required to adjucate situations that come up, and the fact that the material requires supervision.



You could very easily put the core classes on a scale from best to worst. Easily.


I disagree with 90% of your post, specifically the part above quoted. When you say a class is better than another class, what are you judging them on? I'm guessing you are judging them on effectiveness in combat. If that is the case, you are missing a HUGE aspect of D&D.

Monks are one of my favorite classes to play, and I have never felt like I was crap or not contributing to the party. If in your campaigns/experience with D&D you have found that Wizards are gods among men when you compare them next to Monks, I'd say that's an issue with your DM rather than the system.

There is SO MUCH that is subjective about D&D that I can't imagine ever saying 1 class is "best" and another is "worst". I will say that in a typical D&D world, using typical rules, and not in a real gameplay situation (as in no DM present) yes, some classes will appear to be "better" than others. When you bring those classes in at level 1 and play in a real campaign with a competent DM throughout the levels I think you'd see different times where the classes take turns shining at different things. There will be a time when someone says, "Man, I really wish we had a ______ with us right now," and you could fill in that blank with any class.

[talsine]

broken or not broken is up to the DM. Any DM worth his salt can stop a player from braking the system, and if they can they shouldn't be DMing. If a char brakes, talk to them out of game if they refuse to back down... kill their char plain and simple if they get pissed you prolly didn't want to play with them to begin with

Oberoni Fallacy (more of a WOTC board thing, but..)

Just because a DM can fix something with Rule 0 doesn't mean that its not broken. Rule 0 is ment for flavor, not balance.

[the_tick_rules]

i've seen it happen to wizards the most, but any class can become insanely lethal. It all depends on how well the person playing it has studied books and combining the stuff in them.

[Latronis]

You could very easily put the core classes on a scale from best to worst. Easily. If this is at all possible, it's because the system isn't balanced. It doesn't mean players can't have fun with it, but it benefits quite a bit from a DM that sits down to do what they can to rebalance it.

Proof (I know some people will probably disagree at least a little with this, but the general slide should be reasonable looking)-
Wizard>Sorcerer>Cleric>Druid>Rogue>Bard>Fighter>Ranger>Paladin>Barbarian>Monk

Actually it'd be more like:

Wizard>Druid>Cleric>Sorcerer>Rogue>Ranger>Paladin>Barbarian>Fighter>Monk

[Attilargh]

I can't help but notice you did not list the Bard.

[the_tick_rules]

since when is the monk the worst?

[Assassinfox]

since when is the monk the worst?

Since it was first created?

[Indon]

Is it so hard to understand that different people play this game with different objectives in mind? Someone who plays to run a dungeon-delving game is going to have different opinions about the rules than someone who wants to run, say, a game centered around political intrigue.

And considering the game is free-form, really, there can be as many opinions of the quality of the game's rules, as there are players of the game.

[Kultrum]

Oberoni Fallacy (more of a WOTC board thing, but..)

Just because a DM can fix something with Rule 0 doesn't mean that its not broken. Rule 0 is ment for flavor, not balance.

I get where your coming from and to a point i agree, My main point was that a DM can't be afraid to say "no" and to, to a point, control char progression, also a DM can't be afraid to lay down the law

[brian c]

Bards suck. I'm sorry to Bard players, I'm sure they're fun to play, but any listing of "most powerful D&D classes" needs to have Bard at the bottom. Also, I'm not liking the lack of respect for Monks. I wonder if people would think any differently of monks if they had full BAB

[Latronis]

crap knew i was forgetting something. Somewhere between rogue and fighter they're all pretty close in there

People will argue between fighter and monk for worst spot, just as people may be inclined to argue which of the top 3 belong in which top3 spot.

[daggaz]

Bards suck. I'm sorry to Bard players, I'm sure they're fun to play, but any listing of "most powerful D&D classes" needs to have Bard at the bottom. Also, I'm not liking the lack of respect for Monks. I wonder if people would think any differently of monks if they had full BAB

Heh, unless your DM follows the RAW religiously and throws common sense to the wind. Then they are arguably one of the most effective classes possible, even at low levels. Read the Giant's essay on how broken diplomacy is...

[Kultrum]

Bards suck. I'm sorry to Bard players, I'm sure they're fun to play, but any listing of "most powerful D&D classes" needs to have Bard at the bottom.

Love Bards but i have to agree they aren't very powerful, they are helpful but they only supplement other, more powerful, classes

[PirateMonk]

Actually it'd be more like:

Wizard>Druid>Cleric>Sorcerer>Rogue>Ranger>Paladin>Barbarian>Fighter>Monk

I think it actually scales by level.

[Tormsskull]

Just because a DM can fix something with Rule 0 doesn't mean that its not broken. Rule 0 is ment for flavor, not balance.

I would say common sense is meant for balance. And if it takes an official rule for a DM to use common sense in the game, I suppose then that common sense would fall under Rule 0. So therefore, Rule 0 is indeed for balance.

I read WotC material and assume that they have playtested it extensively (may be debateable), but I also know that WotC has never come and sat down at my table to play, and thus they won't automatically know what is balanced for my group.

[ken-do-nim]

Actually it'd be more like:

Wizard>Druid>Cleric>Sorcerer>Rogue>Ranger>Paladin>Barbarian>Fighter>Monk

My turn! (this is core only)

Wizard>Druid>Cleric>Sorcerer>Rogue>Bard>Paladin>Barbarian>Monk>Fighter>Ranger

Remember that this is comparing overall contribution to the party and considering town & wilderness settings in relatively equal proportions to dungeon. I rank bards high because fascination/suggestion can do amazing things in an intrigue-based adventure.

[Latronis]

Doesn't explain why you rate a 3.5 ranger below fighter and monk

[PnP Fan]

Amusing. . .
Initially, I thought the OP was casting "Rage", but it seems most folks made their save, and turned this thread into something else. <snicker>

[JaronK]

I disagree with 90% of your post, specifically the part above quoted. When you say a class is better than another class, what are you judging them on? I'm guessing you are judging them on effectiveness in combat. If that is the case, you are missing a HUGE aspect of D&D.

It's not just combat. A fighter can't do anything better than a druid at high level... not a thing. Fighter wants to trip things? Druid can wildshape into a Legendary Wolf or Dire Ape and trip better than the fighter. Fighter wants to do anything out of combat? Too bad, he's got 2 skill points per level and doesn't have diplomacy or intimidate on his class list, so the Druid does that better too. Need to get across/past/through an obstacle? If you can't get through it by hitting it with a sword a lot, the Fighter's can't help much, but the Druid can burrow/fly/swim/magic right by.

And that's a problem.

JaronK

[Viscount Einstrauss]

I just like arguing :P

I actually graded them according to total contribution to a common adventuring party. Thus, a bard got middle ground, right behind the ultra skill monkey rogue. The pure melee combat guys got last because, while at the lowest levels they're somewhat effective, that wears off real quick. The casters got the entire top roster because while being somewhat effective at low levels, they just scale upwards to cataclysmic ranks. Monks contribute the absolute least to a party, thus did I give them last place.

[Latronis]

Actually the problem is that a fighter can't do the physical combatty stuff better then a druid, rather then not being able to do the other stuff

[Devils_Advocate]

Please stop trying to "fix" it.
Why do you object to attempts to fix 3.5?


It isn't broken.
... Are you seriously suggesting that it isn't possible to obliterate game balance in D&D 3.5 run with no house rules or DM fiat (both of which constitute "fixes")? Is that actually what you mean? Are you unfamiliar with CoDzilla and all his cheesy tricks? Need we invoke the Kobold Who Must Not Be Named?


If you have alternatives to the system feel free to discuss those.
Where do you draw the line between using a different system and slightly altering the current system? Doesn't changing the current system make it into a new, alternative system anyway? So aren't fixes and alternatives basically the same thing, or at least in the same category?


Nothing to see here.
Huh? Are you saying your post was worthless? I don't follow.

[JaronK]

Actually the problem is that a fighter can't do the physical combatty stuff better then a druid, rather then not being able to do the other stuff

Well, that too, which is sad since fighting in close combat is what he's supposed to do. But the poster had claimed that it was only in combat where things were unbalanced, which is what I was adressing.

JaronK

[TempusCCK]

I think the only thing really broken in 3.5 Core is some of the higher level magics.
(Take into consideration I only play Core.)
As a DM I've found ways to nerf it somewhat, I mostly run low-magic settings, right now I'm playing with a level 3 party, Druid, Cleric, Rogue Warrior, and I've already got them paying 2 spell slots for damage dealing spells anbd a variety of other things I dislike, and I'm putting a severe limit on the Druids wild shape, the Giants polymorph variants are really good for that sort of thing.

I agree that 3.5 isn't broken, if I didn't have faith in the system then I wouldn't play it, but I think there are some aspects of it that are, and need to be fixed, but it's nothing a little DM influence can't help.

[Dragor]

People saying my favourite class (Fighter) is rubbish is simply not true. Whilst they may not be able to hold their own in later levels against the spellcasters *spit* (sorry, I have a strange agenda on spellcasters) Fighters are truly useful and a key to holding the group together in early levels, where the other classes (bar the other combat orientated ones) cannot keep up with their presence in the party.

It's all fair, if you think about it. Combat orientated get the glory early on, spellcasters get it later on. So, every gets their finger in the pie at some point and taste the sweet taste of being top of the party.

It's not about what class is most powerful, is it- it's the person inside the class which counts.

Sorry, am I getting teary-eyed? Must be. *sobs and runs to toilets*

[Piccamo]

Casters can have the glory early and late should the player desire it. There are spells at every level that make the fight vastly easier with rather than without the caster. A group of 4 level 1 wizards can get by better than a group of 4 level 1 fighters.

[Tormsskull]

Fighter wants to trip things? Druid can wildshape into a Legendary Wolf or Dire Ape and trip better than the fighter.

Well, first things first, a Fighter at high level is going to have several magic weapons, armor, items, etc. So would a druid. But when a druid wildshapes he isn't going to be able to utilize all of his items.

Second of all, not all situations are going to be appropriate for a Druid to wildshape (it isn't always going to be socially acceptable for a human to suddenly turn into a Dire ape).

Third of all, who determines if a druid is able to wildshape into a legendary wolf or dire ape? That'd be the DM. So it falls in the DM's lap weather or not to allow the Druid to become intimately familiar with the animal.

EDIT: ^

A group of 4 level 1 wizards can get by better than a group of 4 level 1 fighters.

Hahahahahaha. I'm sorry, that made me laugh.

[Indon]

A group of 4 level 1 wizards can get by better than a group of 4 level 1 fighters.

A group of 4 level 1 wizards takes a serious risk of needing to reroll characters as a result of fighting basement rats. At least throw in a cleric, man.

[ken-do-nim]

Doesn't explain why you rate a 3.5 ranger below fighter and monk

Good point (and yes, we turned this thread into something more interesting). I rate rangers low, because ... what exactly do they do? Fighters who choose to be two-weapon fighters are better. Fighters who choose to be archers are better. The animal companion is weak (I like the thread suggestion about reversing druid & ranger animal companion levels). Fighters have a better hit die and usually higher armor class. True, rangers have good skill points, and that's a saving grace, particularly because listen & spot are there. Hide in plain sight rocks but that's at 17th level. So what am I missing? What makes rangers better than fighters? Inquiring minds want to know.

Edit: Oh yeah, rangers get to ignore the dex requirement for those bonus feats. Okay, that's a good point. Just thought of that.

[JaronK]

Actually, the 4 wizards thing is right. Color Spray and Sleep dominate at low levels.

JaronK

[Latronis]

apart from that they have other little abilities

evasion is in there now

but what it comes down to is they can hit things with pointy sticks almost as well as fighter and can do other things besides. They have more use when you need something that doesn't require just hitting with a pointy stick.

Favoured enemy is nice touch too

[Viscount Einstrauss]

I think I need to change my listing a little. Rangers have six skillpoints a level, two good saves, can obtain the TWF feat tree without sinking all their stats into dexterity, camouflague, hide in plain sight, evasion...

I'm sorry, how are fighters better than rangers after the first few levels? They're basically a mesh between the fighter, scout, and rogue. Their combat effectiveness isn't nearly as important as their ability to do other things that the party can really use, though they clearly aren't totally gimped in that matter either. Okay, rangers go above fighters.

[Indon]

Actually, the 4 wizards thing is right. Color Spray and Sleep dominate at low levels.

JaronK

Until the monsters of a CR 1 encounter happen to win initiative, or a couple goblins or something manage to make a DC 14 will save. Then you have at least one character death.

[ken-do-nim]

I think I need to change my listing a little. Rangers have six skillpoints a level, two good saves, can obtain the TWF feat tree without sinking all their stats into dexterity, camouflague, hide in plain sight, evasion...

I'm sorry, how are fighters better than rangers after the first few levels? They're basically a mesh between the fighter, scout, and rogue. Their combat effectiveness isn't nearly as important as their ability to do other things that the party can really use, though they clearly aren't totally gimped in that matter either. Okay, rangers go above fighters.

Okay, okay, you guys win. Rangers above fighters. Esp. in just core. If you add in the Players Handbook II and the Completes, I'm not so sure, because then fighters can build some great feat trees. I like the combat focus ones so they can get fast healing 4.

[choryukami]

It lso depends on the level. If you stripped casters of 9th level spells, the scales would tip (i.e. pre 17th level). They are powerful, but not breaking the fundamental laws of balance. You thought I was going to say physics, didn't you?

Oh yeah, and the monk is badass if played correctly. Pump stunning fist up to insane DC's. I remember one time I went toe-to-toe with a Drow Barbarian as a regular old Human Monk because my stun DC was in the high 20's at 20th level. When you have 5 attacks a round and you get a stun and trip off, it's hard not to get a hit and stun and a trip once in a round.

I also used Quivering Palm on a half-dragon wizard (bwahaha.. less HD than me = death) opponent of my level and killed him in the first round of combat.

[Rigeld2]

A group of 4 level 1 wizards takes a serious risk of needing to reroll characters as a result of fighting basement rats. At least throw in a cleric, man.
...
Why? Why bother meleeing them. Theres lots and lots of spells that will take care of basement rats.

[elliott20]

fighters will shine all the way up until about 6 level when they've taken most of their good feats and then proceed to suck so much ass that it constitutes as porn on the web.

[Bears With Lasers]

Please stop trying to "fix" it. It isn't broken.

Uh-huh, you keep thinking that.

I'll be over here, where infinite Titan gate loops, shapechanging into Zodaks for free Wishes, DMM + Nightsticks, and the like are allowed by the rules.

[Valairn]

By alternatives I meant, actual like alternative rule sets within the DnD system, not a different game. And by fixing I meant labeling it as something you were fixing instead of something you were altering.

Semantics issue entirely, and since I'm a computer programmer, syntax is everything in my life.

And on note Bears, I agree with that entirely, just was having a moment, where like 3 out of 4 posts on the board were like FIX TO DND LAWL! And my head exploded.

[Bears With Lasers]

Valairn, D&D is broken. There are many options that would render a campaign actively unplayable.
It needs fixing.

Furthermore, the gaming community uses certain slang. Why would we use that slang only in a manner pleasing to you, again?

[JaronK]

Seriously. For example, there's a 3kgp item in the DMG that lets you have unlimited wishes. You don't see that as just a little broken?

Of course, D&D does have the advantage of a DM who can make fixes where necessary on the fly.

JaronK

[Valairn]

Alright your right I am SORRY! Its just the new fad bothers me and I was being belligerent and I was having a bad day and was like BLAH all over the gitp boards, I'm gonna cry in the corner now.

[TempusCCK]

Eh, it's cool, anything that can incite some discussion like we've been having today is fine by me.

[Valairn]

By the way Bears With Lasers is actually my favorite poster on these boards and I died a little inside when he logic slapped me.

[Latronis]

Anything that ends with someone crying in the corner is ok by me ^_^

Seriously the RAW has issues, the FAQ contradicts the RAW and itself

but it can all be handled, and earlier editions weren't any better

[TempusCCK]

You have a favorite poster on a D&D board.... I'm not sure what to think of that.

[Bears With Lasers]

That's me. Delivering little slices of internal death, one post at a time.

[Kultrum]

By the way Bears With Lasers is actually my favorite poster on these boards and I died a little inside when he logic slapped me.

Ive seen a lot of their posts, they're good at that

[Bears With Lasers]

http://www.hickerphoto.com/data/media/166/bear_sleeping_sc_0016.jpg

[Big bear scrubbed to avoid sidescrolling]

We're watching you.

Edit: oops.
...y'know, if someone told me my job suddenly involved scrubbing bears? I think I'd reconsider employment.

[elliott20]

I'm scared. I think the bears are going to eat me.

[urodivoi]

Bears is great because he is opinionated and intelligent - always a fun combination.

Being intelligent but never forming opinions is a waist, while simply being opinionated...:smallwink:

Anyway enough off topic from me. :smallamused:

[Bears With Lasers]

I don't have opinions, I have absolute facts that everyone should agree with.

[Latronis]

they arn't watching anyone its winter now

But that just gave me the idea for the ice goblin npc's animal companion.. Polar Bear and its so damn obvious -_-

[Bears With Lasers]

http://images.usatoday.com/news/_photos/2006/12/27/polar-topper.jpg

http://www.carlschaad.com/blog/Polar-bear.jpg

[Latronis]

aw aint they cute?

[Bears With Lasers]

http://www.dongettyphoto.com/churchill/new%20images/Bear10w.jpg

[Kultrum]

I don't have opinions, I have absolute facts that everyone should agree with.

so if i always agree with you then am i always right?

[Latronis]

is it nap time?

[elliott20]

the next character that I make is totally going to be a Kuma from tekken.

[Zherog]

I read WotC material and assume that they have playtested it extensively (may be debateable), ...

WotC has not done any official play testing since they first released 3.0.


Well, first things first, a Fighter at high level is going to have several magic weapons, armor, items, etc. So would a druid. But when a druid wildshapes he isn't going to be able to utilize all of his items.

Why can't the druid utilize his magic items? We're talking high level stuff, right? So wild shape lasts almost all day. So you wake up in the morning, do your thing to prepare your spells, take off your magic items, wild shape into a legendary ape, then put your magic items back on again. Now you have all the goodness of being a legendary ape and all the goodness of your magic items. Where's the problem?



Third of all, who determines if a druid is able to wildshape into a legendary wolf or dire ape? That'd be the DM. So it falls in the DM's lap weather or not to allow the Druid to become intimately familiar with the animal.

I assume you're referring to this part of the rule text from wild shape:


The form chosen must be that of an animal the druid is familiar with.

If so, then what you're saying is that the only way a DM can keep control of a druid is by keeping a careful limit on what animals the druid encounters. If the ability weren't a ginormous can of worms, a DM would be free to use any animal he darn well pleased, without having to worry if the druid was going to later wild shape into it.

And even that doesn't help, since the druid can just make a Knowledge (nature) check.

***

My own personal order of classes (assuming a four person party), if anybody cares:

Druid -> Cleric -> Wizard -> Rogue -> Ranger -> Sorcerer -> Bard -> Paladin -> Barbarian -> Monk -> Fighter

[Tormsskull]

If so, then what you're saying is that the only way a DM can keep control of a druid is by keeping a careful limit on what animals the druid encounters. If the ability weren't a ginormous can of worms, a DM would be free to use any animal he darn well pleased, without having to worry if the druid was going to later wild shape into it.


Sure, the way the ability is worded it can be a rather large can of worms. But that's because the ability is written assuming that there is going to be a DM there who is going to interpret it.



And even that doesn't help, since the druid can just make a Knowledge (nature) check.


And who determines the DC for the Knowledge (Nature) check? Who determines if a legendary ape even exists in the world? Yes, any ability that is as open-ended as Wildshape is will definitely have to be closely supervised. That doesn't mean to me that the druid class (or D&D 3.5) is broken.

[Zherog]

And who determines the DC for the Knowledge (Nature) check?

Um... the rules?



Check: Answering a question within your field of study has a DC of 10 (for really easy questions), 15 (for basic questions), or 20 to 30 (for really tough questions).
In many cases, you can use this skill to identify monsters and their special powers or vulnerabilities. In general, the DC of such a check equals 10 + the monster’s HD. A successful check allows you to remember a bit of useful information about that monster.

[Tormsskull]

Um... the rules?

Ok, keep folowing with me...



Check: Answering a question within your field of study has a DC of 10 (for really easy questions), 15 (for basic questions), or 20 to 30 (for really tough questions).
In many cases, you can use this skill to identify monsters and their special powers or vulnerabilities. In general, the DC of such a check equals 10 + the monster’s HD. A successful check allows you to remember a bit of useful information about that monster.


Who determines if "identifying monsters and their special powers or vulnerabilities" or "a bit of useful information about that monster' equates to:



The form chosen must be that of an animal the druid is familiar with.


Also, once again, if the monster doesn't exist in the world, no amount of knowledge is going to allow a druid to become familiar with it.

[Zherog]

http://majik.be/smilies/nonono.gif


Ok, keep folowing with me

There's no need to be insulting.


Also, once again, if the monster doesn't exist in the world, no amount of knowledge is going to allow a druid to become familiar with it.

Sure, but again you're relying on a "house rule" to fix something that's broken, then saying it's not broken because you fixed it.

[NullAshton]

I don't think that 3.5 is broken, EXCEPT for competitive games. If you're not competing with each other, there's no need to have nigh perfect balance.

[Indon]

Sure, but again you're relying on a "house rule" to fix something that's broken, then saying it's not broken because you fixed it.

Judging 'familiarity' to be something you can't get through book study is hardly a house rule; it's an adjudication. The criteria is vague, and a DM could equally viably rule it to be anywhere from 'yeah, you heard of it, go for it', to 'I'm sorry, but you haven't lived with it for a year and a day yet'.

[Tormsskull]

Um... the rules?




There's no need to be insulting.


I agree.



Sure, but again you're relying on a "house rule" to fix something that's broken, then saying it's not broken because you fixed it.

Determining if a creature exists in a DM's campaign is a house rule? Do you then state that every creature that is featured in a WotC book exists in each and every D&D campaign unless a DM 'house rule"s it away?

[Bouldering Jove]

Determining if a creature exists in a DM's campaign is a house rule? Do you then state that every creature that is featured in a WotC book exists in each and every D&D campaign unless a DM 'house rule"s it away?
A DM could make trolls not exist in their campaign. A DM could also make wizards not exist in their campaign. Both are homebrew implementations to block out certain parts of the printed rules.

[Emperor Tippy]

To the OP: You can become the ultimate over deity at level 1 and within a minute of the game starting. Do you still maintain that D&D doesn't need to be fixed?

[lord_khaine]

imo monks should be rated a bit higher, on the simple ground that they are great at neutralising hostile arcane spellcasters, and other people weak against grapple/stunning.
besides that they have decent skillpoints, and are allmost as good at finding traps as a rogue.

[Latronis]

For the sake of argument you can say anything printed exists hypothetically, but niether can you expect a DM to include everything, especially something realtively minor like the existence of a specific animal.

That still doesn't clarify what constitutes familiarity though, and that's purely DM adjudication.

[Indon]

A DM could make trolls not exist in their campaign. A DM could also make wizards not exist in their campaign. Both are homebrew implementations to block out certain parts of the printed rules.

Inclusion is not required in any part of the D&D rules; it is entirely the DM's call as to if anything is included in their campaign world, even from a 'core' book.

Changing wizards is a house rule. Not including wizards is part of a campaign environment, something that is by the rules created wholly by the DM.

This same argument applies, immensely more robustly, to anything outside of the PHB and DMG.

Just because Wizards of the Coast put it in a book doesn't mean that it exists in a campaign along with everything else Wizards of the Coast put in a book.

[Bouldering Jove]

For the sake of argument you can say anything printed exists hypothetically, but niether can you expect a DM to include everything, especially something realtively minor like the existence of a specific animal.

That still doesn't clarify what constitutes familiarity though, and that's purely DM adjudication.
But the point here is that unless the DM wants to run a game where a druid really is better than a fighter at everything, the DM is forced to interpret the rules and adjudicate in a way unfavorable to the druid. That doesn't sound like a description of well-balanced rules to me.


Inclusion is not required in any part of the D&D rules; it is entirely the DM's call as to if anything is included in their campaign world, even from a 'core' book.

Changing wizards is a house rule. Not including wizards is part of a campaign environment, something that is by the rules created wholly by the DM.

This same argument applies, immensely more robustly, to anything outside of the PHB and DMG.

Just because Wizards of the Coast put it in a book doesn't mean that it exists in a campaign along with everything else Wizards of the Coast put in a book.
See above. You can argue what a "house rule" technically includes, but you're arguing semantics rather than the fact of the matter, which is that the DM has to make an effort and deliberately block creatures from existing in the campaign world just to balance the druid for play.

[Kreistor]

Better keep Stephen Colbert out of this thread, or we'll be getting it from him for being bear lovers.

[Indon]

But the point here is that unless the DM wants to run a game where a druid really is better than a fighter at everything, the DM is forced to interpret the rules and adjudicate in a way unfavorable to the druid. That doesn't sound like a description of well-balanced rules to me.

No, they don't, as I noted earlier with the interpretation of familiarity.

Edit: I responded to the wrong part of the quote. Heh.

Another edit: A rule is ambiguous. Do you interpret it in A.)A clearly exploitable manner, or B.)A different manner. Seriously...

[Tormsskull]

But the point here is that unless the DM wants to run a game where a druid really is better than a fighter at everything, the DM is forced to interpret the rules and adjudicate in a way unfavorable to the druid. That doesn't sound like a description of well-balanced rules to me.


I think the DM is forced to interpret the rules the moment he says "I'll DM this campaign." Furthermore, you seem to becoming from a standpoint that WotC entitles you to everything it prints in its books. And if a DM doesn't allows something in one of those books, then he is "adjucating in a way unfavorable" towards you. I disagree.



See above. You can argue what a "house rule" technically includes, but you're arguing semantics rather than the fact of the matter, which is that the DM has to make an effort and deliberately block creatures from existing in the campaign world just to balance the druid for play.

Once again, you are assuming that since it appears in a book it by default appears in every campaign. I disagree.

[Turcano]

That's me. Delivering little slices of internal death, one post at a time.

That's a sig-worthy quote if ever I saw one.

And your pictures need more lasers.

[Bouldering Jove]

No, they don't, as I noted earlier with the interpretation of familiarity.
Your comment about interpretation still puts the onus on the DM to interpret the rules in a way that deliberately diminishes druid power and versatility so as to make the class closer to others. That's still not a description of a balanced set of rules, especially considering that a DM can just as easily interpret the rules in a way that grants druids that enormous scope of power and versatility.

Rule 0 does not fix every other rule in the book.

[Latronis]

But the point here is that unless the DM wants to run a game where a druid really is better than a fighter at everything, the DM is forced to interpret the rules and adjudicate in a way unfavorable to the druid. That doesn't sound like a description of well-balanced rules to me.

See above. You can argue what a "house rule" technically includes, but you're arguing semantics rather than the fact of the matter, which is that the DM has to make an effort and deliberately block creatures from existing in the campaign world just to balance the druid for play.

ANd when theres no specific ruling on what means what exactly it is upto the DM to take those factors into account. Besides its hardly making an effort to say a druid has to have more then a passing knowledge of a creature to change into one.

I've read a little about wolves, in game terms its means i'd succeed on said knowledge check about the wolf, were i druid would that constitute familiarity with the beast?

The rules don't say, so its DM choice, and any competent DM is going to consider at least the most obvious balance issues. That's hardly what id call making an effort to nerf what by a strictly literal reading of RAW can be permissable.

[Nowhere Girl]

Alright your right I am SORRY! Its just the new fad bothers me and I was being belligerent and I was having a bad day and was like BLAH all over the gitp boards, I'm gonna cry in the corner now.

If it helps, it's not that we're just whining and moaning and crying, "OMFG D&D sux!" These are real, honest efforts to suggest good ways of reworking the most broken parts of the game ... ways that a wise DM could then use proactively and intelligently before those problems come up in-game rather than reactively and sloppily after.

It's all very well-meaning. :smallsmile:

[Zherog]

besides that they have decent skillpoints, and are allmost as good at finding traps as a rogue.

Except that they can't find any magical traps, nor can they find any mechanical traps with a Search DC higher than 20. Yeah, other than that, they're almost as good as the rogue at finding traps. :smallwink:

[Bouldering Jove]

I think the DM is forced to interpret the rules the moment he says "I'll DM this campaign." Furthermore, you seem to becoming from a standpoint that WotC entitles you to everything it prints in its books. And if a DM doesn't allows something in one of those books, then he is "adjucating in a way unfavorable" towards you. I disagree.
The point isn't that if WotC prints it, the players are entitled to it. The point is that if a DM can't feel free to allow the players access to everything printed by WotC because it would wreck the game, then the game as published is obviously broken.

Also, please. Any DM ruling that shuts off player options and/or power is unfavorable to the players, just as granting the players new options and/or power is favorable to them.

[Devils_Advocate]

I don't have opinions, I have absolute facts that everyone should agree with.
But of course. You have a monopoly on the truth (http://www.ozyandmillie.org/d/20000827.html).

[tsuyoshikentsu]

There are two terms here that are being bandied about as one and need separation. First is the term "broken." We all know what this means, and yes, D&D is broken. It always has been. This is not the the issue.

The issue here is the other term, "obviously broken." When something's obviously broken it is so powerful that it doesn't take much searching at all to find. D&D, in this front, is getting much better.

How can I say this in the face of Pun-Pun and other such things, you ask? Here's the simplest example I know how to give. I go down to my local game store and mention Pun-Pun. I have to explain it to everyone in the room at least twice, despite him being famous pretty much throughout the D&D internet community.

On the other hand, I, who have never played 2E with anything but Core, found out that a few friends of mine are still playing in 2E, having never even seen a 3.0 PHB. I said to them, "Tell you what: I'll go back to THAC0 and play with you guys... IF you let me play a Drow Cavalier." They laughed. I laughed.

The Drow Cavalier was so obviously broken that it was famous enough to become known to gaming groups around the world who couldn't even tell you what books it was pulled from -- I still don't know -- despite the fact that the internet hadn't even hit its stride yet. There's nothing in 3.X with that level of brokenness.

[Indon]

The point isn't that if WotC prints it, the players are entitled to it.

That's not RAW. Sure, you can house rule it that players can bring in any book they like into the DM's campaign, but the DM isn't obliged to go out of his way to accommodate you.



The point is that if a DM can't feel free to allow the players access to everything printed by WotC because it would wreck the game, then the game as published is obviously broken.

So you're saying not only that all source material should always be availible, but that none of this source material should be combinable with any other source material in an exploitable way or else the game is broken?



Also, please. Any DM ruling that shuts off player options and/or power is unfavorable to the players, just as granting the players new options and/or power is favorable to them.

D&D is not a game played between the players and the DM. The DM doesn't win if he kills the party; the players don't win if they kill an encounter. Your concept of 'favor' seems dependent on the assumption that not only is D&D a game you can play to win, but that you should play to win, and that somehow there is a criteria for this.

[Zherog]

There's nothing in 3.X with that level of brokenness.

Gate and shapechange. :smallwink:

[Latronis]

The other thing is the game was never intended to be played strictly by the RAW, but rather as guidelines, with the rules there for those who want them.

[Bouldering Jove]

That's not RAW. Sure, you can house rule it that players can bring in any book they like into the DM's campaign, but the DM isn't obliged to go out of his way to accomadate you.
What isn't RAW? My statement that this wasn't the point?


So you're saying not only that all source material should always be availible, but that none of this source material should be combinable with any other source material in an exploitable way or else the game is broken?
Of course. When people play any other type of game worth playing, they don't have to argue over the rules. If they introduce a supplement published by the company (like with Settlers of Catan's expansions), the game changes and includes new factors and options, but there should never be a need to compensate for some exploit that reduces the game to "Whoever achieves this exploit first, wins." If any board game or video game was even a fraction as broken as D&D, we'd certainly call it a broken game. Actually, we'd probably call it a bad game not worth the time or money to play.

D&D is broken. D&D is so horrendously broken that as an argument in its defense, you require the existence of a rules referee, whose business is to allow or disallow published content in order to make the game playable. In what other genre of gaming would that be acceptable?


D&D is not a game played between the players and the DM. The DM doesn't win if he kills the party; the players don't win if they kill an encounter. Your concept of 'favor' seems dependent on the assumption that not only is D&D a game you can play to win, but that you should play to win, and that somehow there is a criteria for this.
No, it's only dependent on players considering more options and/or power to be favorable to them. When was the last time you complained about getting treasure or levelling up?

[ken-do-nim]

D&D is broken. D&D is so horrendously broken that as an argument in its defense, you require the existence of a rules referee, whose business is to allow or disallow published content in order to make the game playable. In what other genre of gaming would that be acceptable?


I can just see it now.

Player 1: I rolled a 7. Lemme see ... Pennsylvania Ave, B&O Railroad, oh no ... I landed on Park Place!
Player 2: That'll be $1500 please.
Player 1: $1500! That's broken! I think I should only have to pay around $1100. This game favors those on the 4th street. My poor purple & light blue properties don't pull in nearly this much money. Sure it costs less to put houses on them, but still. Boardwalk & Park Place are broken.
Player 2: Mom! He's saying the game's broken again!
Mom: Don't worry kids, WOTC just put out a Monopoly expansion in which you can add amenities to your houses and increase the rent you take in. You can also make a "hotel chain" and get other bonuses.

[Zherog]

D&D is broken. D&D is so horrendously broken that as an argument in its defense, you require the existence of a rules referee, whose business is to allow or disallow published content in order to make the game playable. In what other genre of gaming would that be acceptable?

Magic: the Gathering. :biggrin:

[Innis Cabal]

perfect ken-do-nim, i don't think its broken, just some people like to break things, and thats how they play, let them play that way, want to fix it up? go right ahead, want to post, even better. Leaning through each other is the best way to learn. Complaining on end that the wizard is the "own stick" over and over and over and over and over etc...well that can stop and i would be very happy. We get it, the wizard is broken becuase somehow they can cast every spell in the game in 2.2 seconds, and the cleric and druid are worse. Thanks for the heads up

[Bears With Lasers]

Magic: the Gathering. :biggrin:

Aww, SNAP.

[Bouldering Jove]

I can just see it now.

Player 1: I rolled a 7. Lemme see ... Pennsylvania Ave, B&O Railroad, oh no ... I landed on Park Place!
Player 2: That'll be $1500 please.
Player 1: $1500! That's broken! I think I should only have to pay around $1100. This game favors those on the 4th street. My poor purple & light blue properties don't pull in nearly this much money. Sure it costs less to put houses on them, but still. Boardwalk & Park Place are broken.
Player 2: Mom! He's saying the game's broken again!
Mom: Don't worry kids, WOTC just put out a Monopoly expansion in which you can add amenities to your houses and increase the rent you take in. You can also make a "hotel chain" and get other bonuses.
Player 1: Ha! 'Quixotic' with the triple world score!
Player 2: That's insane. I can't possibly win after that.
Player 3: It's pretty unfair.
Player 1: Well, better luck next game.
Player 3: But next game you could pull the same thing.
Player 1: So could any of you, with the right draw and letter management.
Player 2: Sure, but then everyone else automatically loses again. It's crazy, no matter who plays it.
Player 3: 'Quixotic' is unbalanced.
Referee: EXCELSIOR! I have arrived, good citizens!
Player 1: What the...?
Referee: It is my studied opinion that 'Quixotic' is indeed an unbalancing word, and so it shall be stricken from the game dictionary!
Player 2: Who are you? Also, how did you get in my house?
Player 3: And aren't there words with much higher possible point values?
Referee: Indeed there are, and I shall strike them down too when the time comes! In the name of BALANCE! AWAAAY!
Player 1: But then... I just played it. So how do we resolve this, now, if we want to houserule it?
Player 3: Technically, it's not a houserule. That guy who left through the window just disallowed us access to it, even though it's part of the Scrabble dictionary.
Player 2: Let's put the game on hold, guys, I need to call someone about getting a security system installed.

[Bears With Lasers]

perfect ken-do-nim, i don't think its broken, just some people like to break things, and thats how they play, let them play that way, want to fix it up? go right ahead, want to post, even better. Leaning through each other is the best way to learn. Complaining on end that the wizard is the "own stick" over and over and over and over and over etc...well that can stop and i would be very happy.
Most of the "[stuff] broken [more stuff]" posts include attempts at or discussions about fixes.
"Just some people like to break things?" So, a game doesn't need to be balanced, because that should be the players' job?


We get it, the wizard is broken becuase somehow they can cast every spell in the game in 2.2 seconds, and the cleric and druid are worse. Thanks for the heads up
If you think the wizard is broken "because somehow they can cast every spell in the game in 2.2 seconds", then you apparently don't get it.

[Indon]

D&D is broken. D&D is so horrendously broken that as an argument in its defense, you require the existence of a rules referee, whose business is to allow or disallow published content in order to make the game playable. In what other genre of gaming would that be acceptable?

You know, most paper and pencil RPG's require a DM, sometimes called a GM (Game master) or Storyteller. This does not make the paper and pencil RPG genre broken. In fact, I'd say it is an irreplacable staple of the genre which makes it distinct from (and superior to, in some respects) a board game or video game.

This is because the DM is there to give you options. If you pick stupid options that are out of line with the game the DM has made, the DM will shut you down, but it's no worse than if you are playing a video game in which ALL options along those lines are removed.





No, it's only dependent on players considering more options and/or power to be favorable to them. When was the last time you complained about getting treasure or levelling up?

You are again correlating character power and options with some kind of player objective. Doesn't really follow; you don't have to play your D&D game vicariously.

[Bouldering Jove]

You know, most paper and pencil RPG's require a DM, sometimes called a GM (Game master) or Storyteller. This does not make the paper and pencil RPG genre broken. In fact, I'd say it is an irreplacable staple of the genre which makes it distinct from (and superior to, in some respects) a board game or video game.

This is because the DM is there to give you options. If you pick stupid options that are out of line with the game the DM has made, the DM will shut you down, but it's no worse than if you are playing a video game in which ALL options along those lines are removed.
The described role of the GM in almost every tabletop roleplaying game, including D&D, is about creating a compelling and enjoyable play experience. The role of rules referee, a related duty, is incumbent upon them because they're the ones with the power to dictate how things are. But let's imagine a hypothetical world where D&D is a perfect game right out of the book; is playing it somehow less enjoyable because the DM can focus completely on creating a world and a story rather than fiddling with game balance?

It's not the existence of the GM figure that makes most tabletop RPGs broken. It's bad rules. D&D has bad rules. D&D is broken. D&D's bad rules include published options that DMs must shut me off from to preserve a playable game experience. The game was broken before the DM ever touched it. It's still broken even if the DM's fiats fix every woe, because the DM has to step in and fix the published material, often by removing it from play altogether. And this is assuming a truly flawless, amazing DM with many years of experience, to boot. A lesser DM will either create new (maybe worse) exploits in the process, or leave some exploits of less obvious or dramatic impact open to abuse. Even if we are in fact playing with the perfect DM who knows every book like the back of his hand and has a clean, simple solution to every problem, we're playing his Dungeons & Dragons, not Wizards of the Coast's Dungeon & Dragons. WotC's D&D is still just as broken as ever, we've simply laid a new game on top of it.


You are again correlating character power and options with some kind of player objective. Doesn't really follow; you don't have to play your D&D game vicariously.
Yes, yes, I'm sure your games are wonderful freeform simulationist exercises, while mine are vulgar power fantasies. Yet somehow, I think the players of both consider options and power to be favorable, by virtue of their characters being able to more effectively accomplish their goals if they have resources.

[tsuyoshikentsu]

Look. There is exactly one way to balance D&D, and that's to make every character exactly the freaking same. Everything past that is just degrees, depending on how many options there are.

Exemplar Gracia. In Core, a Druid is better than a Barbarian at level 20. (If you disagree, that's fine, but let's assume it's true for the moment.) But if you allow in the Frenzied Berserker, suddenly the Barbarian becomes a much better option. But then if you allow Warshaper, it swings back to Druid.

And you can see how complex this gets with over 30 supplements and 13 Core base classes.

[Kultrum]

Wow i must be dumb but i just dont get Jove arguement. My impression is that jove seems to think that D&D is broken, but if the DM was to rule that rule X is broken and therefor replaces it with rule Y he is then disfavoring Player A who was exploiting Rule X and therefor is a bad DM. That just doesn't make sense to me.

[Counterspin]

D&D is broken not because characters of equal levels can have different power levels, but because they can have painfully different power levels. The point of having a level system is to keep the characters' resources on par with each other, and this is clearly not true.
Every dragon in your shiny, core MM1 can be defeated with the same 4th level spell slot, maximized ray of enfeeblement, right up to your CR27 great wyrm gold dragon, starting at CL 10. If I've taken the two core SR defeating feats, I have a ten percent chance of doing this at level 10, not including any equipment. What do you have that competes with that, as a tenth level fighter? As a twentieth level fighter? And that's a single spell. A single first level spell.
You don't think polymorph, and it's little sister wildshape arent' broken? Well, WOTC disagrees with you. They've rewritten polymorph repeatedly, and you can't use polymorph in sanctioned D&D play anymore. Presumably wildshape has survived because it's a core class feature.
The game is broken because not only are the classes not balanced, they're radically unbalanced. If you want to discuss it more, pm me.

[Bears With Lasers]

How exactly does a maximized ray of enfeeblement take out a great wyrm gold dragon? It just inflicts a -11 STR penalty.

[Viscount Einstrauss]

Hey, -11 is a pretty big dip. Maybe not "Huzzah the gold dragon is clearly destroyed now!", but certainly "Yay the gold dragon will visit 5 clicks less horrible rape now!".

[Counterspin]

I meant ray of clumsiness, which means I'm including spell compendium, admittedly.

[Arbitrarity]

Think he means ray of clumsiness.

EDIT: Ninja'd!

[Bouldering Jove]

Wow i must be dumb but i just dont get Jove arguement. My impression is that jove seems to think that D&D is broken, but if the DM was to rule that rule X is broken and therefor replaces it with rule Y he is then disfavoring Player A who was exploiting Rule X and therefor is a bad DM. That just doesn't make sense to me.
In discussions like these, I tend to make statements that I believe are factually accurate but have nothing to do with my sentiments about the issues involved.

Statement: Players subject to a game master's houserules and adjudications will almost always find them either favorable or unfavorable.
Actual Sentiment: When the game's broken, the GM has to fix it if they want to make it reasonably playable for all. But this isn't ideal, because the players benefitting from the broken aspects may very well feel gypped. Even if they understand the reasons, they may still argue: why not buff everyone else rather than nerfing them?

Statement: DM interpretation of druid "familiarity" so as to limit the power of the druid is a perfect example of an unfavorable bit of adjudication, and also of how the druid's wild shape ability is broken.
Actual Sentiment: Trying to fix wild shape by imposing harsh standards of "familiarity" is a bad move. It sows the seeds for many, many arguments down the road about exactly what it takes to establish familiarity, and how much familiarity the druid gets to assume with various creatures from the druid's background. Worse, it doesn't actually restrict the druid's power, it just sets up annoying prerequisites. A druid can still be better than a fighter at everything, but now they're going to derail the campaign in the process as they make an effort to spend large amounts of time establishing familiarity with creatures they want to wild shape into. A DM trying to restrict wild shape by restricting the creatures in the setting isn't any better; now the DM has the added headache of vetting every creature they put in the game setting for wild shape potential, a single slip-up will completely upset the fragile game balance they've created, and the DM's own options have been restricted. It's a joke. The problem is the rule itself, not how it's massaged.

[Kel_Arath]

ok scros, its not overpowered if you dont let it be. any system can be destroyed like that and made really powerful, any game is like that. all you have to do (or the DM) is say, no. thats right kids just say no to overpowering

[Rigeld2]

... Duh?

But if you "just say no" its a houserule. If something is overpowered to the point of needing a houserule, its broken.

[Kultrum]

In discussions like these, I tend to make statements that I believe are factually accurate but have nothing to do with my sentiments about the issues involved.

Statement: Players subject to a game master's houserules and adjudications will almost always find them either favorable or unfavorable.
Actual Sentiment: When the game's broken, the GM has to fix it if they want to make it reasonably playable for all. But this isn't ideal, because the players benefitting from the broken aspects may very well feel gypped. Even if they understand the reasons, they may still argue: why not buff everyone else rather than nerfing them?

Statement: DM interpretation of druid "familiarity" so as to limit the power of the druid is a perfect example of an unfavorable bit of adjudication, and also of how the druid's wild shape ability is broken.
Actual Sentiment: Trying to fix wild shape by imposing harsh standards of "familiarity" is a bad move. It sows the seeds for many, many arguments down the road about exactly what it takes to establish familiarity, and how much familiarity the druid gets to assume with various creatures from the druid's background. Worse, it doesn't actually restrict the druid's power, it just sets up annoying prerequisites. A druid can still be better than a fighter at everything, but now they're going to derail the campaign in the process as they make an effort to spend large amounts of time establishing familiarity with creatures they want to wild shape into. A DM trying to restrict wild shape by restricting the creatures in the setting isn't any better; now the DM has the added headache of vetting every creature they put in the game setting for wild shape potential, a single slip-up will completely upset the fragile game balance they've created, and the DM's own options have been restricted. It's a joke. The problem is the rule itself, not how it's massaged.

true the rule is the problem but if the DM runs it right they can get by with that fix
DM: so you were taught to be a druid in the forest?
Druid: yep
DM: In this forest? *points to map*
Druid: Yep
DM: Ok you have never even seen a <insert overpowered animal here> and therefor you are not familiar with them however feel fre to choose for this list of animal tht are native to that forest
(and yes i do keep lists of native animals because i have a friend who love druids and overpowering)

[Indon]

D&D's bad rules include published options that DMs must shut me off from to preserve a playable game experience.

Just because not all classes, feats, skills, and magical items (and races and all the other stuff I'm not listing) are appropriate for all imaginable campaign worlds does not mean D&D is broken.

Anything less than that, and DM's must shut you off from options, after all.

Fact is, some things work better in some campaigns than others. This variety in options provide DM's with immense variety in the kinds of environments they create, though certainly it's not infinite.

To meet your requirements, this variety would have to be infinite. All combinations of things in-game would need to equate to the same (or very comparable) level of power and have the same (or very comparable) synergy with all other options.

[Rigeld2]

true the rule is the problem but if the DM runs it right they can get by with that fix
DM: so you were taught to be a druid in the forest?
Druid: yep
DM: In this forest? *points to map*
Druid: Yep
DM: Ok you have never even seen a <insert overpowered animal here> and therefor you are not familiar with them however feel fre to choose for this list of animal tht are native to that forest
(and yes i do keep lists of native animals because i have a friend who love druids and overpowering)
So... how would you gain familiarity with an animal. Or is it impossible if he didnt grow up with one.

Oh, you crafted houserules to let him gain familiarity? Okay, thanks.

[Indon]

So... how would you gain familiarity with an animal. Or is it impossible if he didnt grow up with one.

Oh, you crafted houserules to let him gain familiarity? Okay, thanks.

Any standard of familiarity is equally 'houseruled' because there _is no written standard_.

[Kultrum]

do you guys think my system for familiarity is fair?

[Viscount Einstrauss]

Not explicitly. They DO have a system for familiarity already in place that makes a bit of sense- knowledge checks. See a rare creature in the forest? Knowledge: Nature. An outsider? Knowledge: The Plains. Etc. and all.

This is exactly how I use it, and I've had great fun with characters that fail the check. A moderate fail, and the character just realizes they don't know what it is. A big fail (by 10 or more points) and they confuse it with something else, like thinking a Lamia is a Centaur.

[tsuyoshikentsu]

do you guys think my system for familiarity is fair?

"I've traveled the world, collecting enough information on every animal not considered extinct to write books, which is where my starting wealth comes from. Oh, and that took enough time to make me venerable, so I'll be wanting that +3 WIS, too."

[Counterspin]

So the counter argument to "the rules are broken" is "you can interpret the really vague ones to be ok" ?

[Shadow of the Sun]

See, there is a subtle difference between me and Bears. He has facts that must be agreed with. If I wanted your opinion, I would have told you what it was.

Your opinion is that parts of DnD are broken, such as distilled essence of Batman (Wizards.) Whether they should be fixed is up to whoever is playing them, or DMing.

[Rigeld2]

So the counter argument to "the rules are broken" is "you can interpret the really vague ones to be ok" ?
Basically, yes.

Although, its hard to interpret infinite wishes from a Candle of Invocation as being ok.

[Indon]

So the counter argument to "the rules are broken" is "you can interpret the really vague ones to be ok" ?

I'd say the counter argument to "the rules are broken" is seperate from "wild shape specifically is broken".

My rebuttal to "the rules are broken" is "there aren't any criteria with which to set a good definition of 'broken'."

[Counterspin]

Of course there's a criteria. The level system's sole purpose is to have the characters be roughly equivalent in power to each other. Not exactly, but close.

[Kultrum]

"I've traveled the world, collecting enough information on every animal not considered extinct to write books, which is where my starting wealth comes from. Oh, and that took enough time to make me venerable, so I'll be wanting that +3 WIS, too."

if one of my players said that i would have to counter with:
"k, dont forget the -6 str, dex, and con. oh and sense you've aquired your equipment over time most of is old and worn out *picks some minuses* him that goblin sees you as a prime target with like that rotten armor, oops looks like your at -9 and bleeding and as the healer no one can save you better reroll too bad
Or you could say that all that starting gold was spent on food (starting equipment need not be baught for its price to count against you) so you have no weapons or armor or spell components

[JaronK]

if one of my players said that i would have to counter with:
"k, dont forget the -6 str, dex, and con. oh and sense you've aquired your equipment over time most of is old and worn out *picks some minuses* him that goblin sees you as a prime target with like that rotten armor, oops looks like your at -9 and bleeding and as the healer noone can save you better reroll too bad

"Boy, good thing I'm a druid! Wild shape to ignore those physical stat penalties. I wasn't wearing armour anyway... who needs it when you can turn into a Dire Bear? Any gear I have is magic and thus survives the 40 year excursion quite nicely. And I'm hungry, so I think I'll eat that stupid goblin."

JaronK

[Saph]

My rebuttal to "the rules are broken" is "it's not a problem in my games". We play D&D, we have fun, and we rarely have issues with the rules. Hence, "broken" doesn't mean "spoils the game for us", and since it doesn't mean "spoils the game for us", I don't really care that much about whether other people consider D&D broken or not. Why should I put any value on other people's opinions of how much fun D&D is when I can play the game and find out for myself?

Of course there are problems with the rules of D&D, just like with any rules system. However, the fact that so many people manage to have perfectly fun games without massive houseruling should suggest that some of the people in this thread are exaggerating just a tad.

- Saph

[Kultrum]

"Boy, good thing I'm a druid! Wild shape to ignore those physical stat penalties. I wasn't wearing armour anyway... who needs it when you can turn into a Dire Bear? Any gear I have is magic and thus survives the 40 year excursion quite nicely. And I'm hungry, so I think I'll eat that stupid goblin."

JaronK

too bad i tend to start games a lvl 1

[Rigeld2]

if one of my players said that i would have to counter with:
"k, dont forget the -6 str, dex, and con. oh and sense you've aquired your equipment over time most of is old and worn out *picks some minuses* him that goblin sees you as a prime target with like that rotten armor, oops looks like your at -9 and bleeding and as the healer no one can save you better reroll too bad
Just because its old, doesnt mean that its rotten/useless.

Or you could say that all that starting gold was spent on food (starting equipment need not be baught for its price to count against you) so you have no weapons or armor or spell components
I'm pretty sure the player gets to pick his starting equipment...

[Counterspin]

I also almost never have problems with the rules in my games, but that doesn't mean that the rules are any less broke. It is the simple result of an unwillingness/disinterest in optimization and the good relationship I have with my players.
In ideal world the rules would be fixed, and I would I have a good group. Why do people always have a problem with moving toward that goal? It's not like fixing the rules is going to have a negative impact on your placid, successful games.

[Kultrum]

Just because its old, doesnt mean that its rotten/useless.

I'm pretty sure the player gets to pick his starting equipment...

one never said it was useless just not as good as new
two they do, unless they try to do something to exploit a rule i made that flagrently (and i really don't care if i seem unfair. I think its unfair that a player would try to brake something i worked so hard to make)

[Saph]

In ideal world the rules would be fixed, and I would I have a good group. Why do people always have a problem with moving toward that goal? It's not like fixing the rules is going to have a negative impact on your placid, successful games.

Oh, don't get me wrong. I appreciate players' attempts to make D&D more balanced, and I think in the long term, it'll help the game a lot.

However, if you spend all your time focusing on the things you don't like about a system, it tends to get in the way of more important stuff, like having fun.

- Saph

[Rigeld2]

one never said it was useless just not as good as new
two they do, unless they try to do something to exploit a rule i made that flagrently (and i really don't care if i seem unfair. I think its unfair that a player would try to brake something i worked so hard to make)
So, instead of asking the player not to do that, or further changing the rules, youd... punish him? That makes sense! Its the missing link to how to play D&D!

[Counterspin]

Finding the creaky joints and break points of a system is fun, and I'm pretty sure I don't speak only for myself. That's why we create all those threads about the system's weak points that people bust into so they can tell us the problem we're poking at doesn't exist, or that we should ignore it because things are supposed to be unbalanced.

[Kultrum]

So, instead of asking the player not to do that, or further changing the rules, youd... punish him? That makes sense! Its the missing link to how to play D&D!

ya i tell them the penalties of what they are doing before character creation then if they do play it i get to punish them. By telling them that they will get outrageous penalties is my way of asking them not to (most of my players catch on quick to my quirks)

[Bouldering Jove]

Just because not all classes, feats, skills, and magical items (and races and all the other stuff I'm not listing) are appropriate for all imaginable campaign worlds does not mean D&D is broken.

Anything less than that, and DM's must shut you off from options, after all.
Are you seriously putting this forward? D&D is broken for reasons entirely separate from specific campaign worlds. A classic example is that fighters are worthless at high levels in comparison to wizards. That would be core, without any supplements. Clerics can also completely replace the fighter and simply be better because they have their divine magic to do additional things with. This is talking about general power levels, but there are also very specific broken elements, such as the diplomacy rules as written. Once you start looking at supplements, you run into the insane exercises like Pun-Pun and the Hulking Hurler, in addition to things that are simply extremely powerful, like divine metamagic + night sticks, the Planar Shepherd, and intensive arcane metamagic builds using PrCs like the Incantatrix. I'm sure there are plenty more things you could find on the WotC character optimization boards that would put these to shame. Using the right supplements and the right tricks, a player can rapidly amass a degree of power that makes the other members of the party next to meaningless. The game becomes unplayable as intended, and it meets any reasonable definition of broken.


Fact is, some things work better in some campaigns than others. This variety in options provide DM's with immense variety in the kinds of environments they create, though certainly it's not infinite.
The fact is, some things are horrendously abusable whenever they appear. Things like Time Stop and the polymorph spells. This is not a discussion about the power level of individual games or specific setting environments, this is a discussion about published material being unusably broken. To talk about individual DM choices and excluding certain published game elements is essentially to concede the point.


To meet your requirements, this variety would have to be infinite. All combinations of things in-game would need to equate to the same (or very comparable) level of power and have the same (or very comparable) synergy with all other options.
What requirements have I proposed? The only thing I can see that could be considered a "requirement" of sorts is my proposition that if the people running a game must muck about with the rules to make it an enjoyable, playable experience, it's a bad or broken game.

[PaladinBoy]

I'd have to agree with some of these other people. Does it really matter if the rules are broken? I've never had a problem with it in my games. If somebody I was playing with was playing just so he could break the rules and be full of epic win, I'd "forget" to call him to tell him what time the next meeting was. Okay, I'd try talking to him first.

As a DM, I'd say that if anyone started exploiting the rules, I'd take him aside and ask him to stop. If he refused to stop, I'd use Rule 0. Fair to that player? Maybe not. Fair to the other 3 people at the table, who just became meaningless? Yes. I would prefer to catch it before it became a problem, but if I don't, I'll houserule it away.


Are you seriously putting this forward? D&D is broken for reasons entirely separate from specific campaign worlds. A classic example is that fighters are worthless at high levels in comparison to wizards. That would be core, without any supplements. Clerics can also completely replace the fighter and simply be better because they have their divine magic to do additional things with.

This has been covered before, in numerous other threads, but I would like to say that I do not believe you are correct. That fighter's abilities are going to look a lot more valuable when your wizard and cleric are out of spells. Yes, yes, I know about the teleport/MMM trick, which isn't going to work if you don't have 8 hours to spend waiting and resting. (Or 4, if you're an elf.) I could present more, but this doesn't strike me as the proper thread to discuss this issue at length in. (I don't mean that you can't post a rebuttal, by the way.)


This is talking about general power levels, but there are also very specific broken elements, such as the diplomacy rules as written. Once you start looking at supplements, you run into the insane exercises like Pun-Pun and the Hulking Hurler, in addition to things that are simply extremely powerful, like divine metamagic + night sticks, the Planar Shepherd, and intensive arcane metamagic builds using PrCs like the Incantatrix. I'm sure there are plenty more things you could find on the WotC character optimization boards that would put these to shame. Using the right supplements and the right tricks, a player can rapidly amass a degree of power that makes the other members of the party next to meaningless. The game becomes unplayable as intended, and it meets any reasonable definition of broken.

Then we make it playable. No game can be perfect; there will always be problems. If the problems were unfixable, now that would be bad. Given that simple applications of common sense can resolve a lot of problems, and reasonable players and a reasonable DM can resolve the rest, I hesitate to label 3.5 D&D as being insanely broken.


The fact is, some things are horrendously abusable whenever they appear. Things like Time Stop and the polymorph spells. This is not a discussion about the power level of individual games or specific setting environments, this is a discussion about published material being unusably broken. To talk about individual DM choices and excluding certain published game elements is essentially to concede the point.

Unusably broken? That would only be true if you define use as use exactly as written. I would define use as using the D20 system, as using the published classes, as using 90% of the spells provided, etc.

Since I am still using a lot, if not all, of the material that WotC has provided, I don't think the system is unusably broken. It's got bad elements, that much is true. But those bad elements can be repaired or removed, and the rest can be used.

Also, this means that if these broken elements never appear, then you're fine. That usually happens in lower level games, but the idea of a high level wizard that doesn't have Time Stop is not completely illogical. Unlikely, perhaps, but not impossible.


What requirements have I proposed? The only thing I can see that could be considered a "requirement" of sorts is my proposition that if the people running a game must muck about with the rules to make it an enjoyable, playable experience, it's a bad or broken game.

I think that D&D is not broken enough that the players and DM must alter the rules in order to make it fun. It might be advisable, but if you have reasonable players that aren't too concerned with optimization and are concerned about everyone having fun, then you'll be fine even with no changes.

[Bears With Lasers]

I meant ray of clumsiness, which means I'm including spell compendium, admittedly.

Ray of Clumsiness can't reduce the dragon's dex below 1.
You have to hit it with a Ray of Exhaustion, too.

(And get past its magical defense; a gold Great Wyrm is a potent spellcaster, with access to the cleric list--Spell Immunity, Greater, anyone?--as well as the sorcerer list.)


Dex drain is the cheesy tactic of choice against dragons, but you can't do it in core, and it stops being quite so easy at higher levels, since dragons get casting.

[Counterpower]

I don't care in the slightest whether 3.5 is broken. I play D&D to have fun. If everyone in my group is having fun, then does it really matter whether the game is broken or not? Even if someone's using some exploit to gain godlike power at level 10, if everyone in the group is having fun then there is no problem at all. If someone in the group is not having fun, then I as the DM will do what I can to help that player have fun. If that means nerfing a exploitable class or special ability, then I will take that player aside and explain the situation. Hopefully, the player who's taking advantage of this exploit will be reasonable and be willing to make a sacrifice to help make sure that everyone's enjoying themselves. And if he's not, then I don't think I want to have him in my group anyway.

[Viscount Einstrauss]

If you're having fun, then it's indeed right. But the problem is that a lot of people start having trouble having fun once the game stops being challenging or focuses too much on someone else because they're just too damn powerful. Sure, some groups might not find too much wrong with this- but in my experience, they're in a very small minority and can't be counted on. It's much better to have a DM that learns the system cold, finds kinks, and has experience in dealing with those kinks in order to make the game more fluid and less "Who's the better mathematician?".

[ken-do-nim]

I don't care in the slightest whether 3.5 is broken. I play D&D to have fun. If everyone in my group is having fun, then does it really matter whether the game is broken or not? Even if someone's using some exploit to gain godlike power at level 10, if everyone in the group is having fun then there is no problem at all. If someone in the group is not having fun, then I as the DM will do what I can to help that player have fun. If that means nerfing a exploitable class or special ability, then I will take that player aside and explain the situation. Hopefully, the player who's taking advantage of this exploit will be reasonable and be willing to make a sacrifice to help make sure that everyone's enjoying themselves. And if he's not, then I don't think I want to have him in my group anyway.

Right, so we discuss this topic when not everyone is having fun. I remember back in college I joined a group where most people were learning D&D for the first time. The DM had these crazy rules where everyone went up a level every session, he made a new pc class that was horribly broken, and spell-casters were uninterruptable. So what ended up happening was that the melee characters did practically nothing every round while the guy with the new class & the guy who was the spell-caster did everything. However, as it was everyone's first experience with role-playing, everyone was having a blast. Except me. I complained to the DM about going up a level every session, and the other players thought I was nuts. I stuck it out to the finale, where most of us got plastered by the enemy spell-caster and the guy playing the custom-made class had a one-on-one duel and beat the BBEG. It was lame, but only for me. And let me tell you, it's really futile to tell people why they shouldn't be having fun.

[Kultrum]

Right, so we discuss this topic when not everyone is having fun. I remember back in college I joined a group where most people were learning D&D for the first time. The DM had these crazy rules where everyone went up a level every session, he made a new pc class that was horribly broken, and spell-casters were uninterruptable. So what ended up happening was that the melee characters did practically nothing every round while the guy with the new class & the guy who was the spell-caster did everything. However, as it was everyone's first experience with role-playing, everyone was having a blast. Except me. I complained to the DM about going up a level every session, and the other players thought I was nuts. I stuck it out to the finale, where most of us got plastered by the enemy spell-caster and the guy playing the custom-made class had a one-on-one duel and beat the BBEG. It was lame, but only for me. And let me tell you, it's really futile to tell people why they shouldn't be having fun.

ya that happen in my first game almost down to the letter (except i was a bard e.i. even less powerful) and I hated it, a friend of mine killed his own char off and almost got me to do the same, but i was naive and thought the game was salvageable, shows what i knew:smallfrown:

[Innis Cabal]

bears with lazers, that wizard thing is called sarcasm, ive been playing since before most people on this forum were born ill bet. And yes there are things that are silly, but then again thats how life goes.

[PaladinBoy]

Right, so we discuss this topic when not everyone is having fun. I remember back in college I joined a group where most people were learning D&D for the first time. The DM had these crazy rules where everyone went up a level every session, he made a new pc class that was horribly broken, and spell-casters were uninterruptable. So what ended up happening was that the melee characters did practically nothing every round while the guy with the new class & the guy who was the spell-caster did everything. However, as it was everyone's first experience with role-playing, everyone was having a blast. Except me. I complained to the DM about going up a level every session, and the other players thought I was nuts. I stuck it out to the finale, where most of us got plastered by the enemy spell-caster and the guy playing the custom-made class had a one-on-one duel and beat the BBEG. It was lame, but only for me. And let me tell you, it's really futile to tell people why they shouldn't be having fun.

Was this the only group available? They didn't listen when you explained why you weren't having fun?

Seriously, if I was in a group like that...... even playing with just me and the DM (or me and the player) would be more fun than that. Or even my video games. I'd tell them "I'm not having fun, so I don't want to play anymore." Explain to them that they're your friends and you like to do a lot of things with them........ but this game, as played, isn't one of them. If they don't listen, then you may want to find new friends.

There's a pretty good rule for any type of free-time/ fun activity......... if you're not having fun, don't do it.

[Kultrum]

Was this the only group available? They didn't listen when you explained why you weren't having fun?

Seriously, if I was in a group like that...... even playing with just me and the DM (or me and the player) would be more fun than that. Or even my video games. I'd tell them "I'm not having fun, so I don't want to play anymore." Explain to them that they're your friends and you like to do a lot of things with them........ but this game, as played, isn't one of them. If they don't listen, then you may want to find new friends.

There's a pretty good rule for any type of free-time/ fun activity......... if you're not having fun, don't do it.

yay! someone understands! *hugs*

[Counterpower]

Right, so we discuss this topic when not everyone is having fun. I remember back in college I joined a group where most people were learning D&D for the first time. The DM had these crazy rules where everyone went up a level every session, he made a new pc class that was horribly broken, and spell-casters were uninterruptable. So what ended up happening was that the melee characters did practically nothing every round while the guy with the new class & the guy who was the spell-caster did everything. However, as it was everyone's first experience with role-playing, everyone was having a blast. Except me. I complained to the DM about going up a level every session, and the other players thought I was nuts. I stuck it out to the finale, where most of us got plastered by the enemy spell-caster and the guy playing the custom-made class had a one-on-one duel and beat the BBEG. It was lame, but only for me. And let me tell you, it's really futile to tell people why they shouldn't be having fun.

I salute your tolerance............. had that been me, the DM would be out a player and be watching his back for the next two months.

And if that last sentence is supposed to mean that talking to the exploiting character is a waste of time, then that was the point of my last line: if the only possible way that the exploiting character can be having fun is by taking advantage of these exploits, then I will not shed any tears if he leaves after I rule zero his exploit away.

[ken-do-nim]

Was this the only group available? They didn't listen when you explained why you weren't having fun?

Seriously, if I was in a group like that...... even playing with just me and the DM (or me and the player) would be more fun than that. Or even my video games. I'd tell them "I'm not having fun, so I don't want to play anymore." Explain to them that they're your friends and you like to do a lot of things with them........ but this game, as played, isn't one of them. If they don't listen, then you may want to find new friends.

There's a pretty good rule for any type of free-time/ fun activity......... if you're not having fun, don't do it.

It's a little more complicated than that. My ex-girlfriend was in the group, and I was trying to spend more time with her ... and I ended up pissing her off anyway so it was really a bad scene.

[Kel_Arath]

Was this the only group available? They didn't listen when you explained why you weren't having fun?

Seriously, if I was in a group like that...... even playing with just me and the DM (or me and the player) would be more fun than that. Or even my video games. I'd tell them "I'm not having fun, so I don't want to play anymore." Explain to them that they're your friends and you like to do a lot of things with them........ but this game, as played, isn't one of them. If they don't listen, then you may want to find new friends.

There's a pretty good rule for any type of free-time/ fun activity......... if you're not having fun, don't do it.
*sniff* i... i love you for knowing my pain..

[Kultrum]

It's a little more complicated than that. My ex-girlfriend was in the group, and I was trying to spend more time with her ... and I ended up pissing her off anyway so it was really a bad scene.

got you beat my (ex) girlfriend was the DM of my game... it was horrible. She did start me on D&D thou so i still think of her fondly.

[Viscount Einstrauss]

See, this is why when you ask a girl to play a game with you, you have her fetch snacks and make dinner the whole time instead.

And now it's time to run and duck from the girl power hate that's most certainly coming my way.

[Kultrum]

See, this is why when you ask a girl to play a game with you, you have her fetch snacks and make dinner the whole time instead.

And now it's time to run and duck from the girl power hate that's most certainly coming my way.

quick behind the macho-shield

[Bouldering Jove]

This has been covered before, in numerous other threads, but I would like to say that I do not believe you are correct. That fighter's abilities are going to look a lot more valuable when your wizard and cleric are out of spells. Yes, yes, I know about the teleport/MMM trick, which isn't going to work if you don't have 8 hours to spend waiting and resting. (Or 4, if you're an elf.) I could present more, but this doesn't strike me as the proper thread to discuss this issue at length in. (I don't mean that you can't post a rebuttal, by the way.)
Spellcasters planning strategically are unlikely to run out of spells at the standard rules-proscribed four encounters per day. If the DM consistently looks for ways to upend spellcaster advantages by throwing lots of time-sensitive encounters at them, they're going to feel just as annoyed as a melee type who never gets a fair chance to bash some skulls. Of course, the spellcasters are also going to be handling those challenges much more capably than the non-spellcasters could.


Then we make it playable. No game can be perfect; there will always be problems. If the problems were unfixable, now that would be bad. Given that simple applications of common sense can resolve a lot of problems, and reasonable players and a reasonable DM can resolve the rest, I hesitate to label 3.5 D&D as being insanely broken.
...
Unusably broken? That would only be true if you define use as use exactly as written. I would define use as using the D20 system, as using the published classes, as using 90% of the spells provided, etc.

Since I am still using a lot, if not all, of the material that WotC has provided, I don't think the system is unusably broken. It's got bad elements, that much is true. But those bad elements can be repaired or removed, and the rest can be used.

Also, this means that if these broken elements never appear, then you're fine. That usually happens in lower level games, but the idea of a high level wizard that doesn't have Time Stop is not completely illogical. Unlikely, perhaps, but not impossible.
So, it's not broken, except for the parts that are broken, and fixing those broken parts (by your estimate including one out of every ten spells in the game) is the responsibility of the DM. Yikes. You're asking every DM who plays the game to rebalance the game mechanics on their own, and I think that's a pretty tall order.


I think that D&D is not broken enough that the players and DM must alter the rules in order to make it fun. It might be advisable, but if you have reasonable players that aren't too concerned with optimization and are concerned about everyone having fun, then you'll be fine even with no changes.
Anecdote time: in my experience so far, I've only met one person who played games with the explicit purpose of having fun, and he's the bitterest gamer I've ever met. I believe no one sets out to have fun, they have fun as a byproduct of playing the games they enjoy, and that encourages them to keep playing. The friends I play D&D with are like this. They don't set out to have fun, they set out to play D&D. They keep playing every week because they get a kick out of it.

People get different things out of tabletop RPGs and have different play styles, which I've seen categorized as gamist, simulationist, and exploratory. But making lofty arguments about the joys of the immersive experience and D&D not having an "objective" are really out of place here. As I've seen Bears with Lasers say multiple times, if you really want to roleplay rather than concern yourself with the mechanics of slaying dragons and improving your character's power, D&D really isn't the best game on the market to satisfy you. It's chock full of mechanics and principles that are unnecessary to the player more concerned with the intricacies of narrative. Sure, you can negotiate your way through them and have a good time doing pure roleplaying with D&D, but you have to make an effort to get past the clumsiness of the level experience system, inherent strict limits on what characters can do, and a thousand little things that have nothing to do with the experience you're after. A DM trying to create that type of experience can use rule zero like a machete and cut through the thicket to help you get there, but then, again, why are you even playing D&D anymore?

The heart and soul of the D&D rules is combat, and combat has the obvious objectives of survival and victory. Character optimization is what lets you survive and win, and so anyone interested in surviving and winning fights is going to enter the realm of character optimization, which necessarily means squeezing the most gain possible from the rules. My friends aren't munchkins, and they're indirectly out to have fun, but where the rules are broken, the players with the setups to exploit those rules are going to start dominating the game. It can be delayed, but as long as you're playing D&D, its problems will emerge, and I don't want to have to rely on either shoddy patches by fiat or unofficial rules alterations to get by. I want to play the game I bought. But it's broken.

[ken-do-nim]

The heart and soul of the D&D rules is combat, and combat has the obvious objectives of survival and victory. Character optimization is what lets you survive and win, and so anyone interested in surviving and winning fights is going to enter the realm of character optimization, which necessarily means squeezing the most gain possible from the rules. My friends aren't munchkins, and they're indirectly out to have fun, but where the rules are broken, the players with the setups to exploit those rules are going to start dominating the game. It can be delayed, but as long as you're playing D&D, its problems will emerge, and I don't want to have to rely on either shoddy patches by fiat or unofficial rules alterations to get by. I want to play the game I bought. But it's broken.

Well said!

[Innis Cabal]

you dont have to optimize though, even if the rules allow it. You shouldnt play if your not having fun, after all paying 30 bucks for a book to not have fun is just silly. Let the people that want to optimize have their fun, after all if thats what makes them happy who are we to say otherwise? If you dont like it don't do it. I understand WoTC has set out to kill RP where ever it spawns, ive seen it happen, but so long as players don't want it to happen it won't

[Kultrum]

The heart and soul of the D&D rules is combat, and combat has the obvious objectives of survival and victory. Character optimization is what lets you survive and win, and so anyone interested in surviving and winning fights is going to enter the realm of character optimization, which necessarily means squeezing the most gain possible from the rules. My friends aren't munchkins, and they're indirectly out to have fun, but where the rules are broken, the players with the setups to exploit those rules are going to start dominating the game. It can be delayed, but as long as you're playing D&D, its problems will emerge, and I don't want to have to rely on either shoddy patches by fiat or unofficial rules alterations to get by. I want to play the game I bought. But it's broken.

I want to believe you but deep down i guess I'm not a realist because in my heart of hearts I think there is at least one group out there thats having fun right now without worrying if the rules are broken or who's character is better their just acting, rolling dice and laughing *wipe away tear* but I know your right and most people do care and a lot of people do try to exploit the rules

[Kreistor]

Spellcasters planning strategically are unlikely to run out of spells at the standard rules-proscribed four encounters per day. If the DM consistently looks for ways to upend spellcaster advantages by throwing lots of time-sensitive encounters at them, they're going to feel just as annoyed as a melee type who never gets a fair chance to bash some skulls. Of course, the spellcasters are also going to be handling those challenges much more capably than the non-spellcasters could.

My players have had to learn resource management. Four encounters per day is just a guideline. I can do five or six, if I want to. Frugality is the watchword in my campaign.

The important point in designing a campaign is to ensure everyone gets a chance to shine. If only the wizard shines, it's not the fault of the system, but in the man implementing the campaign.

I won't say 3.5 is not broken: I haven't found any system to lack flaws. I will say that 3.5 is the most balanced DnD to have ever been published, and I see a lot of good signs that they are finally snapping those assumptions preventing a number of concepts that other systems have had no difficulty with. I look forward to an eventual DnD 4.0, and I expect it to discard even more of those "not so broken after all" concepts.

[Zherog]

Just because its old, doesnt mean that its rotten/useless.

Yeah! My mom is old, and she's neither rotten nor useless. Well, not completely useless anyway. :smalltongue:


I also almost never have problems with the rules in my games, but that doesn't mean that the rules are any less broke. It is the simple result of an unwillingness/disinterest in optimization and the good relationship I have with my players.

Exactly. There's a (more or less) "unwritten code" at my game table. It keeps things from going into crazy town.


Yes, yes, I know about the teleport/MMM trick, which isn't going to work if you don't have 8 hours to spend waiting and resting. (Or 4, if you're an elf.)

Well, first... an elf still needs 8 hours of rest before she can prepare arcane spells again - even though she only requires four hours of "sleep."

Second, if you're talking about a high enough level wizard it doesn't even matter. Because the wizard simple uses plane shift to travel to a plane where time flows faster than the material. They rest, re-prep spells, and return to the prime almost immediately after they left.

Wizard: I'll be back in a few seconds, guys!

* casts spell *

POP

Six seconds later...

POP

Wizard: OK, back. I have all my spells prepared again. And since I know what we're fighting now, all my spells are perfect for the situation. Hey, why is the fighter sitting in the corner sucking his thumb and rocking back and forth?

[the_tick_rules]

well i'm gonna play my monk and enjoy it, you can all go sit on a broom stick :smallamused:

[Kultrum]

well i'm gonna play my monk and enjoy it, you can all go sit on a broom stick :smallamused:

and im going to play my bard and have fun:smallyuk:

[Daneel the Sane]

To me, the situation is rather simple.

Is D&D broken as written? Well, yes, in the same way that my car is "broken" since its driver can choose to smash into private property, thus abusing the car. If you are infested with powergamers who look for the cute little loopholes that make them a Pun-Pun UberGod of Awesomeness, then it is up to the DM to fix it. Some folks are saying that this is too much work for the DM, but I have been doing it since I started DMing 23 years ago, and I find it easy. One of my best friends is not allowed in my games anymore because he couldn't stop doing this stuff. Okay, whatever.
Personally, I play for fun. I am all about telling a story, and my players are all about helping me tell a story. They do not whine when I say, "Sorry, that is way to stupidly powerful, can't do that," they simply shrug and say, "Cool, then I will do something else." Can a druid wildshape into legendary animals in my world? Heck no! Why not? Probably something about them being unique animals created by the earth mother goddess, requiring godly power, yadda yadda, blah blah blah. Or I will say something like, "How do you become 'familiar' with a tiger that could eat a jeep. You would be an hor'doerve to that thing." It is my job, as the DM, to not let my game become stupid.
My players do not try to become uberpowerful. They concentrate on the goals in the story. Sure, they will go after this spell or that, and want to go up in levels. I have run epic games with these folks without any issues at all, because it is about the story. Of course, most of my players are in their upper twenties, lower thirties in age, so that helps. It is not a competition, it is a collaberation.
I make mistakes, like anyone else. I once approved a spell that on the face of it looked no more powerful than a fireball (custom spell) that due to a little thing about geometry allowed the player to take out a small army with a single spell. Oops. Better check that again. Okay, fixed! Easy.
I guess the point that I am making is that if mature people are sitting down to have fun and play a game together, making it a collaberation, then broken or not, things are easy to work past. Is the game broken? Yep. Is it a problem? Nope.

[Counterpower]

The heart and soul of the D&D rules is combat, and combat has the obvious objectives of survival and victory.

True. That doesn't mean that RPing has no place, or even that is has a small place. D&D, despite all of its combat rules, is a game where you create a fantasy world and play out a story in that world. The fact that most of the rules revolve around adjudicating combat does not mean that it focuses on combat. Another possible meaning is that roleplaying simply does not require as many rules, which is the explanation I favor.


Character optimization is what lets you survive and win, and so anyone interested in surviving and winning fights is going to enter the realm of character optimization, which necessarily means squeezing the most gain possible from the rules.

Really? I don't need to optimize my characters. Was the counterspell-focused wizard that I used in an attempt to challenge my group's casters the optimal wizard build? No, if what I've seen of what wizards can be is any indication. Is the half-dragon bard character that spends more time in melee with a greatsword the optimal half-dragon build? I highly doubt it. Does that detract from the party's enjoyment of the game? I haven't heard any complaints.


My friends aren't munchkins, and they're indirectly out to have fun, but where the rules are broken, the players with the setups to exploit those rules are going to start dominating the game.

Then you FIX THE RULES. I do not understand what the problem with that is.


It can be delayed, but as long as you're playing D&D, its problems will emerge, and I don't want to have to rely on either shoddy patches by fiat or unofficial rules alterations to get by.

Why not? Especially considering that no one and nothing is perfect, and that games to which balance is so important (like D&D) are almost impossible to balance, why not rely on unofficial alterations?


I want to play the game I bought. But it's broken.

Why do you play D&D then? Considering the game by its very definition calls for a person whose job is in part to make the calls when it comes to rule problems, I don't see why you want to play this game at all.

[Bouldering Jove]

you dont have to optimize though, even if the rules allow it. You shouldnt play if your not having fun, after all paying 30 bucks for a book to not have fun is just silly. Let the people that want to optimize have their fun, after all if thats what makes them happy who are we to say otherwise? If you dont like it don't do it. I understand WoTC has set out to kill RP where ever it spawns, ive seen it happen, but so long as players don't want it to happen it won't
You're right, there's nothing that requires the players to optimize in the ways that the rules allow. Yet if they're interested in surviving and winning fights, they must, to one or another extent.


I want to believe you but deep down i guess I'm not a realist because in my heart of hearts I think there is at least one group out there thats having fun right now without worrying if the rules are broken or who's character is better their just acting, rolling dice and laughing *wipe away tear* but I know your right and most people do care and a lot of people do try to exploit the rules
Where does fun emerge? It's different for every person and every game group. Of course people enjoy playing D&D, or it wouldn't be popular, but when I hear people support the system by referring to rule zero, I can't help but wonder what people see in D&D besides familiarity. If you don't want the shadow of character optimization to menace your game, why play by rules which allows it to be a potent threat? If you really love in-character social interactions, why not play a system with social mechanics to support you beyond diplomacy and bluff checks? If you don't want constrictive mechanics at all, why employ all of D&D's convoluted mess? If you like the setting material, isn't fluff the easiest thing in the world to transfer to a different system? Why defend mediocrity?

[Zherog]

Then you FIX THE RULES. I do not understand what the problem with that is.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with fixing the rules. It's necessary.

However, the original premise of this thread is that there's nothing wrong with 3.5 - that is, it's not "broken." But it is. We all know it is.

That's OK - we all have our own ways of fixing it. Some people write pages of house rules. Some people form little agreements of "I won't do that if you don't do that." Some people just tweak a rule here and there, and hope the patches are good enough. Some people opt to nerf their PCs to hell and back. Whatever. We're all doing the same thing - we're patching the system to cover up the holes. We might all patch different pieces, and we most certainly do it different ways. But the original premise that started this entire thread is flat out wrong. 3.5 is most definitely brokenated in places.

And, really, I'm OK with that - as long as everybody is willing to admit it.

[Kultrum]

Bouldering Jove you sound like a good guy and i would prolly like to having you in one of my games but i think the problem is a differing of opinion. I think that optimizing is a result of one of two things either: A) a bad/ good, but thinks his players are trying to overpower their characters, DM who is throwing off monsters too hard for the party which ends up as a vicious cycle or B) a d-bag of a player (this is best solve with a large rock falling on their character:smallamused: )/ a player who thinks the DM is A

[ken-do-nim]

I will say that 3.5 is the most balanced DnD to have ever been published,

I beg to differ. I think 2.5 [include Combat & Tactics and Spells & Magic] was more balanced. I think 3.5 however has better mechanics.

[One_Wolf]

You're right, there's nothing that requires the players to optimize in the ways that the rules allow. Yet if they're interested in surviving and winning fights, they must, to one or another extent.


This depends entirely on your DM. In my campaigns none of my NPC's are "optimized". I attempt to create fun and interesting characters for the PC's to interact with, whether hostile or friendly.

I promote players to do the same with their characters. You want to create a Elf fighter with a 10 STR and 16 INT, do it, you won't be slaughtered or useless, just not stereotypical.

That being said, if your DM likes to optimize the baddies and promotes high challenge battles, then maybe you would have to do the same to survive.

Personally, that is not my cup of tea.

-One Wolf

[PaladinBoy]

So, it's not broken, except for the parts that are broken, and fixing those broken parts (by your estimate including one out of every ten spells in the game) is the responsibility of the DM. Yikes. You're asking every DM who plays the game to rebalance the game mechanics on their own, and I think that's a pretty tall order.

Well, I think the DM should do some rebalancing if he needs to. I also don't think it's a guarantee that he will need to, if you have reasonable players. The 90% was completely random; it was not intended to be any sort of estimate.


Anecdote time: in my experience so far, I've only met one person who played games with the explicit purpose of having fun, and he's the bitterest gamer I've ever met. I believe no one sets out to have fun, they have fun as a byproduct of playing the games they enjoy, and that encourages them to keep playing. The friends I play D&D with are like this. They don't set out to have fun, they set out to play D&D. They keep playing every week because they get a kick out of it.

I set out to play D&D because I find it fun. Were it to stop being fun, I would find something else to do.


The heart and soul of the D&D rules is combat, and combat has the obvious objectives of survival and victory. Character optimization is what lets you survive and win, and so anyone interested in surviving and winning fights is going to enter the realm of character optimization, which necessarily means squeezing the most gain possible from the rules. My friends aren't munchkins, and they're indirectly out to have fun, but where the rules are broken, the players with the setups to exploit those rules are going to start dominating the game. It can be delayed, but as long as you're playing D&D, its problems will emerge, and I don't want to have to rely on either shoddy patches by fiat or unofficial rules alterations to get by. I want to play the game I bought. But it's broken.

I'm not sure about this dominating the game part. They'll do a lot; my game has a warmage that is directly responsible for more kills than anyone else in the party combined. Then again, my character isn't completely useless; he's actually more of a tactician than the warmage, and his utility spells help a lot. And if we need diplomacy........ the warmage's blasty magic is useless, and it's my 11 ranks which carry the day.

In short, my character helps in some situations, and the warmage helps in others. It's a matter of what type of challenge we're facing. If the DM creates challenges that leave some characters next to useless, and gives others a chance to shine, then there is no problem...... so long as everyone is happy with their chance to shine.


Well, first... an elf still needs 8 hours of rest before she can prepare arcane spells again - even though she only requires four hours of "sleep."

Oops. That'll teach me to check the rules before I post.


Second, if you're talking about a high enough level wizard it doesn't even matter. Because the wizard simple uses plane shift to travel to a plane where time flows faster than the material. They rest, re-prep spells, and return to the prime almost immediately after they left.

Wizard: I'll be back in a few seconds, guys!

* casts spell *

POP

Six seconds later...

POP

Wizard: OK, back. I have all my spells prepared again. And since I know what we're fighting now, all my spells are perfect for the situation. Hey, why is the fighter sitting in the corner sucking his thumb and rocking back and forth?

Off the top of my head, I can't think of a plane in my campaign setting with a time trait that dramatic. And in case you're wondering, Arcane Genesis, in my campaigns, does prevent you from altering the time trait of the created demiplane.


Edit: I'd like to summarize. I think D&D has problems; it's not that I think it's not broken. I just think that the fix required is not very complicated, and that the brokenness is in large part due to powergamers that try to "win" D&D.

I think that if nobody in your game is creating anything impossibly over-the-top, that there is nothing stopping you from having fun. And if you can have fun playing, I don't think it's broken too badly.

[Counterpower]

[snip]Where does fun emerge? It's different for every person and every game group. Of course people enjoy playing D&D, or it wouldn't be popular, but when I hear people support the system by referring to rule zero, I can't help but wonder what people see in D&D besides familiarity.

Well............ can you create a system completely from scratch that can do better? Can you name a different system that can do better? I take what I like from the rules, and I change what I don't like.


If you don't want the shadow of character optimization to menace your game, why play by rules which allows it to be a potent threat?

I don't play by those rules. Well, I suppose I do for now (I haven't altered the rules yet, except in ways that don't hinder the characters at all) but I will change those rules if I have to.

Also, I'll provide my fix for that statement: "why play with players that can't have fun without insane char-op?" That's what I would ask, instead of asking about rules which are well within my power to change anyway.

One Wolf: yes. I am 100% in agreement.


If you really love in-character social interactions, why not play a system with social mechanics to support you beyond diplomacy and bluff checks?

You need rules to tell you how to talk to people or hold a conversation?

Edit: PaladinBoy, I think you're understating the half-dragon. And that's another important point: I always try to give my characters a chance to be the most important person there. I have plans in place for all of the characters' individual moments.

[Innis Cabal]

i don't see how something a DM should handle, such as surviving the game without being a total optimizer, if my players are not having fun we dont start playing untill we all talk one what one has to do to have fun. If they want to use the rules to screw me over well i have NPC's that can do the same thing and if they want to push things, i have more up my sleeve then a pit fiend and a red dragon. Yes there are problems, but you try making a game this size and scope without error and appeal to everyone.

[Bouldering Jove]

True. That doesn't mean that RPing has no place, or even that is has a small place. D&D, despite all of its combat rules, is a game where you create a fantasy world and play out a story in that world. The fact that most of the rules revolve around adjudicating combat does not mean that it focuses on combat. Another possible meaning is that roleplaying simply does not require as many rules, which is the explanation I favor.
Then if you're not concerned with rules systems in the first place, why use one with enormous flaws?


Really? I don't need to optimize my characters. Was the counterspell-focused wizard that I used in an attempt to challenge my group's casters the optimal wizard build? No, if what I've seen of what wizards can be is any indication. Is the half-dragon bard character that spends more time in melee with a greatsword the optimal half-dragon build? I highly doubt it. Does that detract from the party's enjoyment of the game? I haven't heard any complaints.
Any NPC classes in your party? Why not, if combat survivability and efficacy really play no role in your satisfaction?


Then you FIX THE RULES. I do not understand what the problem with that is.
Ah, yes. I, the lone DM, should singlehandedly rewrite the rules according to my personal whims and opinions. That's certainly a recipe for perfect game balance. Even if I use the power of the internet to consult with many other fans and their cumulative experience, every thread here is full of a dozen different (often radically different) opinions about what even needs to be balanced in the first place, let alone the extent or means. To really fix the rules requires a degree of knowledge, experience, and time investment that it is absolutely unreasonable to expect many customers to invest in a product.


Why not? Especially considering that no one and nothing is perfect, and that games to which balance is so important (like D&D) are almost impossible to balance, why not rely on unofficial alterations?
"Nothing's perfect" is not a very good defense for something with flaws as catastrophic as Pun-Pun. More importantly, why should the expectations be on me? I'm the person shelling out money for the game! Why should I have to rely on unofficial "patches" to run a game at level 18 that isn't a joke?


Why do you play D&D then? Considering the game by its very definition calls for a person whose job is in part to make the calls when it comes to rule problems, I don't see why you want to play this game at all.
A DM's job description includes rules arbitration because there are rule problems to arbitrate. If there were no rules problems, the DM's job would in fact be more interesting, because they'd be able to fully devote their attention and energy towards creating and running an interesting world with compelling player-driven narrative. There are thousands upon thousands of games that people enjoy that don't require someone to rewrite the rules just to keep them functioning, very much including some other tabletop RPGs; the fact that D&D requires such rules revisions as a standard part of play is a sign that D&D's rules have failed.

As for why I play, my reasons include my friends' familiarity with the game, my enjoyment of its combat mechanics, and a visceral satisfaction derived from both the progress of abilities and squeezing the rules for the most interesting challenges and solutions.

[Zherog]

Off the top of my head, I can't think of a plane in my campaign setting with a time trait that dramatic. And in case you're wondering, Arcane Genesis, in my campaigns, does prevent you from altering the time trait of the created demiplane.

But again - you're using a "houserule" to get rid of something, then saying it's not brokenated. The end result (no planes with that time trait, and genesis can't make one) is in fact a "not broken" situation. But where you started (the core rules) was broken, or you wouldn't've patched it.

[Innis Cabal]

who plays by the 100% as written core rules? If you do you deserve to get burned. They are guildlines, i remember when there used to be a paragraph saying the most important thing of the game is to have fun, and if you dont like something change it, did they take that out of the book somewhere along the line?

[Indon]

Anecdote time: in my experience so far, I've only met one person who played games with the explicit purpose of having fun, and he's the bitterest gamer I've ever met. I believe no one sets out to have fun, they have fun as a byproduct of playing the games they enjoy, and that encourages them to keep playing. The friends I play D&D with are like this. They don't set out to have fun, they set out to play D&D. They keep playing every week because they get a kick out of it.

Personally, I play to tell a story. That means that the concerns that you consider broken, such as spells and such, are immaterial when I play; whatever my character experiences feeds back into the characters' personality, and I enjoy seeing what way it will go whatever happens to him. Even if he's unoptimized and I end up dying heroically as a result; hell, all the better an anecdote as a result.



People get different things out of tabletop RPGs and have different play styles, which I've seen categorized as gamist, simulationist, and exploratory. But making lofty arguments about the joys of the immersive experience and D&D not having an "objective" are really out of place here. As I've seen Bears with Lasers say multiple times, if you really want to roleplay rather than concern yourself with the mechanics of slaying dragons and improving your character's power, D&D really isn't the best game on the market to satisfy you. It's chock full of mechanics and principles that are unnecessary to the player more concerned with the intricacies of narrative. Sure, you can negotiate your way through them and have a good time doing pure roleplaying with D&D, but you have to make an effort to get past the clumsiness of the level experience system, inherent strict limits on what characters can do, and a thousand little things that have nothing to do with the experience you're after. A DM trying to create that type of experience can use rule zero like a machete and cut through the thicket to help you get there, but then, again, why are you even playing D&D anymore?


Because D&D has an immense amount of good source material (though of course, it's not _all_ good) and it'd be annoying as hell to have to modify it all over to a different gaming system.

Arguably, the best narrative system is very, very light on rules, though; a pity so few people can successfully navigate in such a loosely bounded environment. So if I have to play a game with rules, I might as well go for the one that has a Call of Cthulhu ruleset.

So really, yes, the game is probably broken if you play it with things like character optimization in mind (and DEFINITELY if you want to include every suppliment!). But it's not a broken narrative system; if anything, its' general lack of rules regarding character interaction can be used to encourage roleplaying... or, if that's what you prefer, encourage very quick noncombat resolution using the quick-and-dirty rules framework.

By no means is it the absolute best RP system ever. I'm not sure such a system exists. But D&D is far from unplayable. Even all the problems cited as being so painfully, obviously broken... simply aren't encountered by many people who play.

[Indon]

There are thousands upon thousands of games that people enjoy that don't require someone to rewrite the rules just to keep them functioning, very much including some other tabletop RPGs; the fact that D&D requires such rules revisions as a standard part of play is a sign that D&D's rules have failed.


I'd like an example of one of these tabletop games. Perhaps one of the high-modularity systems like GURPS? I've not played that system.

[Counterpower]

Then if you're not concerned with rules systems in the first place, why use one with enormous flaws?

Because I have no better option. I want combat and roleplaying. D&D, so far, has provided that in a fun and effective manner, without any major rule changes.


Any NPC classes in your party? Why not, if combat survivability and efficacy really play no role in your satisfaction?

Again, now you are falsely assuming that I don't care about combat. But our definitions of "optimization" are different. I consider it to focus to the exclusion of all else on combat survivability. Who knows....... maybe next campaign I'll want to play the confused commoner thrust into a role he didn't want.


Ah, yes. I, the lone DM, should singlehandedly rewrite the rules according to my personal whims and opinions. That's certainly a recipe for perfect game balance. Even if I use the power of the internet to consult with many other fans and their cumulative experience, every thread here is full of a dozen different (often radically different) opinions about what even needs to be balanced in the first place, let alone the extent or means. To really fix the rules requires a degree of knowledge, experience, and time investment that it is absolutely unreasonable to expect many customers to invest in a product.

I apologize for the misconceptions I seem to be spawning all over the place. No, I'm not going to even try to fix all the rules. I will fix D&D one rule at a time, as they become problems. So far, I haven't had to do any fixing at all. When my players are not having fun, I will fix the rule causing their dissatisfaction.


"Nothing's perfect" is not a very good defense for something with flaws as catastrophic as Pun-Pun. More importantly, why should the expectations be on me? I'm the person shelling out money for the game! Why should I have to rely on unofficial "patches" to run a game at level 18 that isn't a joke?

Because you have not found a better choice, have you? Can you tell me about a better system?


A DM's job description includes rules arbitration because there are rule problems to arbitrate. If there were no rules problems, the DM's job would in fact be more interesting, because they'd be able to fully devote their attention and energy towards creating and running an interesting world with compelling player-driven narrative. There are thousands upon thousands of games that people enjoy that don't require someone to rewrite the rules just to keep them functioning, very much including some other tabletop RPGs; the fact that D&D requires such rules revisions as a standard part of play is a sign that D&D's rules have failed.

"Standard part of play?" No, not really. Not to my experience. I focus on making an interesting world. I'm working in Eberron for now, and the effort I went to in writing a custom history of the Age of Dragons attests to the attention and energy I'm employing. I repeat: We're all having fun, and I haven't changed the rules every session, or even at all.


As for why I play, my reasons include my friends' familiarity with the game, my enjoyment of its combat mechanics, and a visceral satisfaction derived from both the progress of abilities and squeezing the rules for the most interesting challenges and solutions.

Ah, so despite D&D's numerous problems, you still enjoy it? What, then, is the problem here? When did the problems with the system become more important than spending your limited leisure time on someting you enjoy?

[NullAshton]

One thing I like to do with narrative styles is define what type of 'miss' something is based on the AC values. I basically have each type of AC bonus as a certain range, and put all of those on a mental map. Then I see what range the attack falls in. For example, if it falls within the range of deflection bonus, the attack was deflected because of the ring of protection or whatever.

[tobian]

All right, to much arguement now over specifics for me to really sort through well, so heres my overall view:


Personally, I believe that overall that 3.5 is a decent system, but it does contain its own flaws.

*cough pun-pun cough*

Now that that has been said, I dont really see the need for some kind of overhaul/major alterations, but at the same time a lot of the "problems" of 3.5 have never came up in the games that I have participated in. It should be the DMs decision (with some imput from all the players of the game) what goes and dosent go in any particular campaign.

If something is so outlandish that it causes other players to not have fun then it should be not allowed or altered so that everyone can have fun. However, if you can make something powerful and everyone else benefits from it or it dosent detract from others experience, then go for it!

Thats the point of DnD -To have FUN! :smallwink:

[Bouldering Jove]

Well............ can you create a system completely from scratch that can do better? Can you name a different system that can do better? I take what I like from the rules, and I change what I don't like.
That can do better at what? Part of the problem with tabletop RPG systems in general is that they don't make clear what they're trying to be good at. If you want big epic fantasy fights, Exalted might be for you. If you want realism, balance, and options, you could go GURPS. There's Shadowrun 4E, which is based on a very flexible and adaptable system. Suggested by Bears with Lasers, there's some interesting game mechanics at play in Nobilis, Amber Diceless, and Dogs in the Vineyard. If I just want to have an action movie blast, I could play Feng Shui. If dark horror and steep consequences is more your bag, there's Call of Cthulhu, and I've heard great things about Unknown Armies.


I don't play by those rules. Well, I suppose I do for now (I haven't altered the rules yet, except in ways that don't hinder the characters at all) but I will change those rules if I have to.

Also, I'll provide my fix for that statement: "why play with players that can't have fun without insane char-op?" That's what I would ask, instead of asking about rules which are well within my power to change anyway.
You could just as easily say "Why play with players who supposedly are playing great warriors and mages but can't even handle themselves in a fight?" It's about personal play style. I can understand the satisfaction derived from deep roleplaying, and I can understand the satisfaction from unleashing a build that can wtfpwn everything the DM tries to throw at them. Both are legitimate.


You need rules to tell you how to talk to people or hold a conversation?
There are good reasons to have rules for social mechanics. Let's say Alice and Bob are in my playgroup. Alice is gregarious and has no problem getting into character and talking up a storm. Bob is shy and not very good at thinking on his feet when it comes to what his character would say. Now, if Alice is the "party face" and Bob is a sullen warrior-type, this isn't a problem. But what if Alice wants to play a silent warrior and Bob wants to play a dashing scoundrel? So what if Bob isn't a good speaker, Alice can't really cleave apart demons with a greatsword but the rules let her do that, so there should be no reason Bob can't say "I try to convince the queen that we're the most trustworthy swords in town" and let the dice do the talking for him. Even if everyone at the table is a talented roleplay, they might not actually enjoy getting into character and acting out conversations.

[Innis Cabal]

tobain you should be given a medal

and a question to those that think its broken
1) Why are you playing 3.5?
2) Why have you not found/made your own game in which you make the rules and can worry about whats not broken/broken
3) If you can't answer either of those why are you complaining?

[Emperor Tippy]

and a question to those that think its broken
1) Why are you playing 3.5?
Because I like it.


2) Why have you not found/made your own game in which you make the rules and can worry about whats not broken/broken
I've done that before. It's a pain. And it takes years. And then its very unlikely that anyone except a RL group will be willing to play it.


3) If you can't answer either of those why are you complaining?
Answered.

And the simple fact is that 3.5 is not balanced. I frankly don't mind and ignore it. I have good players and they don't do anything to weird or messed up unless its a campaign where you should do such things.

[tobian]

tobain you should be given a medal

and a question to those that think its broken
1) Why are you playing 3.5?
2) Why have you not found/made your own game in which you make the rules and can worry about whats not broken/broken
3) If you can't answer either of those why are you complaining?

:smallbiggrin: Woot I get a medal! :smallbiggrin:

But yea, I mean, if you break the game to where no one can have fun, whats the point? I would honestly play something underpowered and with flavor then something some insanely optimized wizard who takes down a Tarrasque by himself.

Breaking the system where its pointless... is just that, it makes the game pointless. It ceases to be fun for your friends, and ultimately in the end, for you.

[Innis Cabal]

if you dont use the silly rules then your game isnt broken now is it? WoTC tries their best to make everyone happy, and they should by all means continue to do so. In fact i will give them more money to make gaming main stream, i cant tell you how far i had to go to hide that i played D&D back in the day, not just from people my age but the adults since they thought it was demon worship. Yes some rules are silly, be it that they are unsupported or not well planed, or just people finding loopholes in the game, if thats what makes them happy let them do it is all im saying, i dont get why people have to complain about a rule set not being balanced when no one is doing anything about it

[Kultrum]

Is 3.5 perfict? no. Does it has some bad oversights? Yes. Does this make the game unplayable? I should say not.
I will admit there are some problems. But they aren't that big of a deal, if you don't exploit them.
furthermore i defy you to name a single pen and paper RPG that is perfect out of the box, completely balanced, and is as fun as D&D, if you can i will give a f**king medal:smallfurious:

ah i needed that

[PaladinBoy]

:smallbiggrin: Woot I get a medal! :smallbiggrin:

But yea, I mean, if you break the game to where no one can have fun, whats the point? I would honestly play something underpowered and with flavor then something some insanely optimized wizard who takes down a Tarrasque by himself.

Breaking the system where its pointless... is just that, it makes the game pointless. It ceases to be fun for your friends, and ultimately in the end, for you.

I suppose I could make another long argument about this, but I think I'll just give you your second medal and call it a day (okay, maybe the minute it'll be until the next rebuttal).

I agree completely. I think that if the game isn't fun, then something is wrong. I, personally, find it easier to have fun with an interesting character as opposed to a powerful one. (Which does not mean that I don't like powerful characters.) I can understand the fun that comes from blowing up the DM's monsters. I cannot, however, understand the fun that comes from making something that's so powerful that there's no challenge in playing it. Like tobian said, it stops being fun.

[Counterpower]

That can do better at what? Part of the problem with tabletop RPG systems in general is that they don't make clear what they're trying to be good at. If you want big epic fantasy fights, Exalted might be for you. If you want realism, balance, and options, you could go GURPS. There's Shadowrun 4E, which is based on a very flexible and adaptable system. Suggested by Bears with Lasers, there's some interesting game mechanics at play in Nobilis, Amber Diceless, and Dogs in the Vineyard. If I just want to have an action movie blast, I could play Feng Shui. If dark horror and steep consequences is more your bag, there's Call of Cthulhu, and I've heard great things about Unknown Armies.

Give me one option that provides rules that don't require revisions, with similar options to make a unique character, that has a good roleplaying element. No Call of Cthulhu, I don't like dark horror.


You could just as easily say "Why play with players who supposedly are playing great warriors and mages but can't even handle themselves in a fight?" It's about personal play style. I can understand the satisfaction derived from deep roleplaying, and I can understand the satisfaction from unleashing a build that can wtfpwn everything the DM tries to throw at them. Both are legitimate.

Actually, I don't think that second one is legitimate. D&D is not "defeat the challenges that the DM throws at you." D&D is not the players versus the DM. Trust me: if it was the players vs. the DM.......... well, let me dig out the Epic Level Handbook so I can slaughter the 10th level adventurers. Players vs. the DM does not work, simply because the DM is the final, unbeatable overgod of the game world. If you get your joy out of crushing all of the DM's challenges with an insanely broken build, at the expense of the other players in the game, then two things will happen to you:

1. I will not play with you after you reveal your preferences.

2. That session will end with that insanely broken build dying.

To be fair, I will try to talk to you first. But if you refuse to abandon your build after I explain the effect it's having on the game group's enjoyment, and you dislike it when I rule zero it away to preserve the enjoyment of the rest of the group............. say hello to my horde of monsters that have CRs that are several times larger than yours.


There are good reasons to have rules for social mechanics. Let's say Alice and Bob are in my playgroup. Alice is gregarious and has no problem getting into character and talking up a storm. Bob is shy and not very good at thinking on his feet when it comes to what his character would say. Now, if Alice is the "party face" and Bob is a sullen warrior-type, this isn't a problem. But what if Alice wants to play a silent warrior and Bob wants to play a dashing scoundrel? So what if Bob isn't a good speaker, Alice can't really cleave apart demons with a greatsword but the rules let her do that, so there should be no reason Bob can't say "I try to convince the queen that we're the most trustworthy swords in town" and let the dice do the talking for him. Even if everyone at the table is a talented roleplay, they might not actually enjoy getting into character and acting out conversations.

Do D&D's rules not have a reasonable system for that? If it's a lie, then it's Bluff, and if it's not, then I'd probably go Diplomacy.

And Tobian: I will give you another medal. We apparently are thinking along the exact same lines.

[Emperor Tippy]

Is 3.5 perfict? no. Does it has some bad oversights? Yes. Does this make the game unplayable? I should say not.
I will admit there are some problems. But they aren't that big of a deal, if you don't exploit them.
furthermore i defy you to name a single pen and paper RPG that is perfect out of the box, completely balanced, and is as fun as D&D, if you can i will give a f**king medal:smallfurious:

ah i needed that
SR 4 is pretty close. It needs maybe a page of errata, and most of that is just clarifying a few things.

[Kultrum]

I suppose I could make another long argument about this, but I think I'll just give you your second medal and call it a day (okay, maybe the minute it'll be until the next rebuttal).

I agree completely. I think that if the game isn't fun, then something is wrong. I, personally, find it easier to have fun with an interesting character as opposed to a powerful one. (Which does not mean that I don't like powerful characters.) I can understand the fun that comes from blowing up the DM's monsters. I cannot, however, understand the fun that comes from making something that's so powerful that there's no challenge in playing it. Like tobian said, it stops being fun.

ya lets just give him medals
also good point

[Kultrum]

SR 4 is pretty close. It needs maybe a page of errata, and most of that is just clarifying a few things.

well its not perfect so no medal, but you do get an "I tried" merit badge

[Innis Cabal]

Kultrum you get a medal to

[Kultrum]

Kultrum you get a medal to

w00t I'm finally recognized for my contribution!!!:smallbiggrin:

[PaladinBoy]

SR 4 is pretty close. It needs maybe a page of errata, and most of that is just clarifying a few things.

Is that a page of errata so it's playable, or a page of errata so it's perfectly balanced?

The first is not very good. The second would be excellent.

[Innis Cabal]

yes Kaltrum your one of the few here talking sense you desrve something other then arguments. Why do you want something to be "Perfect"? Your always going to have one person unhappy about something, so that one page is just going to keep changing untill its another book, nothing in life is perfect, why should our imagination be any different?

[Kultrum]

i feel dumb for asking but was does SR 4 stand for?

[Counterpower]

Just a guess here, but Jove mentioned a "Shadowrun 4E".

I admit, I really don't know either.

[Emperor Tippy]

Is that a page of errata so it's playable, or a page of errata so it's perfectly balanced?

The first is not very good. The second would be excellent.

A page of errata so its perfectly balanced. And as I said most of that is just clarifying a few things. More like an FAQ than errata really.


i feel dumb for asking but was does SR 4 stand for?
Shadowrun 4

[Kultrum]

Shadowrun 4

Thank you for the clarification.

[Innis Cabal]

i got quoted in a sig? Wow, second person ever to do that, you rock Kultrum

[Bouldering Jove]

Personally, I play to tell a story. That means that the concerns that you consider broken, such as spells and such, are immaterial when I play; whatever my character experiences feeds back into the characters' personality, and I enjoy seeing what way it will go whatever happens to him. Even if he's unoptimized and I end up dying heroically as a result; hell, all the better an anecdote as a result.
Do you actually use the game mechanics? Spells, levels, classes? As long as you use them, then the issues that are constantly brought up on these boards are not by any means immaterial, because they do affect your game, even in subtle ways (such as how CR and monster power levels are calculated).

I'm am curious how you design your characters mechanically and plan their progression at all. Class mechanics are almost completely independent from how you want to portray them in the fluff (for example, you can explain a fighter's feats and general prowess as the result of divine power). So what motivates you to actually pick a particular class besides the name?


Because D&D has an immense amount of good source material (though of course, it's not _all_ good) and it'd be annoying as hell to have to modify it all over to a different gaming system.
Not really. If you think the Tarrasque is cool, describe something in system X as the Tarrasque. Conversions only become a hassle when the converter insists on completely equivalent mechanical representation.


Arguably, the best narrative system is very, very light on rules, though; a pity so few people can successfully navigate in such a loosely bounded environment. So if I have to play a game with rules, I might as well go for the one that has a Call of Cthulhu ruleset.

So really, yes, the game is probably broken if you play it with things like character optimization in mind (and DEFINITELY if you want to include every suppliment!). But it's not a broken narrative system; if anything, its' general lack of rules regarding character interaction can be used to encourage roleplaying... or, if that's what you prefer, encourage very quick noncombat resolution using the quick-and-dirty rules framework.
Actually, D&D is a broken narrative system. By the RAW, a diplomacy build character can easily turn just about any foe into a staunch ally. A DM has to rewrite the rules just to stop characters from potentially overriding any meaningful roleplay with the diplomacy skill.


By no means is it the absolute best RP system ever. I'm not sure such a system exists. But D&D is far from unplayable. Even all the problems cited as being so painfully, obviously broken... simply aren't encountered by many people who play.
It's playable... until you run into the things that make it unplayable. That's not a ringing endorsement.

[Kultrum]

i got quoted in a sig? Wow, second person ever to do that, you rock Kultrum

wow this is a great day for me, normally im the one getting yelled at for not making sense:biggrin:

[Maxymiuk]

If we're throwing out games that are good to go from the start, I'd suggest Savage Worlds. Admittedly, I haven't had extensive experience with it, but I've played it long enough to be able to confidently say that the ruleset is easy, streamlined, and fairly painless to learn. It supports melee, ranged, and vehicular combat across all genres (yes, it works equally well for both high seas pirate attack and a frantic chase through an asteroid field), as well as makes it incredibly easy to improvise unorthodox situations. More importantly, it doesn't get in the way when you just want to roleplay.

The system's selling point however, is that it has the same premise as D&D (only done better). Namely, you - the PC's - are awesome. Everyone else, aside from monsters and BBEG's, are mooks that go down in 1-2 hits. This lends itself to some truly cinematic fights - I mean, the system has a (simple) mechanic for how a single character can influence entire battles, for cripes sake! :smallbiggrin:

[Innis Cabal]

No Kultrum you win the internet today, you deserve it.

[Kultrum]

I'm am curious how you design your characters mechanically and plan their progression at all. Class mechanics are almost completely independent from how you want to portray them in the fluff (for example, you can explain a fighter's feats and general prowess as the result of divine power). So what motivates you to actually pick a particular class besides the name?
actually most of the time i dont have a plan for char progretion. I usually start with fluff and work from there you know pick their class, feats and skills after I decide on my character concept

[Kultrum]

If we're throwing out games that are good to go from the start, I'd suggest Savage Worlds. Admittedly, I haven't had extensive experience with it, but I've played it long enough to be able to confidently say that the ruleset is easy, streamlined, and fairly painless to learn. It supports melee, ranged, and vehicular combat across all genres (yes, it works equally well for both high seas pirate attack and a frantic chase through an asteroid field), as well as makes it incredibly easy to improvise unorthodox situations. More importantly, it doesn't get in the way when you just want to roleplay.

The system's selling point however, is that it has the same premise as D&D (only done better). Namely, you - the PC's - are awesome. Everyone else, aside from monsters and BBEG's, are mooks that go down in 1-2 hits. This lends itself to some truly cinematic fights - I mean, the system has a (simple) mechanic for how a single character can influence entire battles, for cripes sake! :smallbiggrin:

from the sounds of it I think you might just get that medal, I must do research on this "Savage Worlds" you speak of

[paigeoliver]

There is simply no way that all the rules in D&D get playtested extensively before they are released. There are so many different feats, spells, prestige classes and monsters in the system that there is no way to begin to test all the combinations.

You would need to run hundreds and hundreds of test tables just to properly evaluate the material in a single book, much less evaluating how that material interacts with the material from other books.

With that said, it isn't like 3.5 is any different from the previous incarnations of D&D in that respect. 1st edition and BECMI rogues had skills that were essentially unusable until their levels hit the teens (and they quickly went to foolproof then).

I hate the phrase "broken". I am tired of hearing it. It sounds stupid. If everything is so "broken" then go play Castles and Crusades (which btw, is a whole lot more like D&D than D&D is these days).

Nothing is "broken" if the gamemaster runs a world with consequences.

Overpowered "broken" characters are going to stand out in the world. Any super-duper broken one trick pony character writes his own death warrant. Someone or something they can't handle is going to come gunning for them, and in most cases they shouldn't be able to handle it.

Uber-damage characters will gain more of a reputation than they really deserve and will end up getting in over their heads, or simply being assassinated.

If nightsticks can power overpowered persistent combinations then how long do you think your 8th level cleric is going to be able to hold on to his against all the forces of evil who want it for their own uses?

The forces of darkness will conspire to take out that super-turning cleric BEFORE he gets to the point where he can dust the local Lich. Your 6th level super-mounted-charge character will appear to the world to be much more powerful than he is, and will eventually be challenged to defeat something that can take him in one round.

[Innis Cabal]

im glad to see more and more people saying that its not the rules fault, and here i thought this was going to be another Wizards are the pwn, thats why D&D sucks" threads

[KoDT69]

I say if you don't like it, don't play it, and stop complaining about it. I have played D&D going on 14 years and have had house rules from the start. Why? Because they suited our playstyle and idea of fun. None of my houserules nerf anything to maintain balance. As DM I keep the players honest by not using cheese myself until they start to try. They normally get the point and don't try it again. That's fun for us. D&D is broken but I don't care. I play because I like it. So I have houserules, but who doesn't? It is highly improbable for any campaign to not have a single house rule. RAW can't cover every situation, seriously. As soon as the DM makes a call not expressly implied by RAW he has made a houserule to handle such situations, whether he realizes it or not.

[Counterpower]

Do you actually use the game mechanics? Spells, levels, classes? As long as you use them, then the issues that are constantly brought up on these boards are not by any means immaterial, because they do affect your game, even in subtle ways (such as how CR and monster power levels are calculated).

Well, let's see. If the wizard and warmage/wizard in the party don't bother with optimization, then the bard who spends most of his time in melee combat with a sword still enjoys himself and still serves some purpose, despite all of the apparent problems with the divide between magic and melee.


I'm am curious how you design your characters mechanically and plan their progression at all. Class mechanics are almost completely independent from how you want to portray them in the fluff (for example, you can explain a fighter's feats and general prowess as the result of divine power). So what motivates you to actually pick a particular class besides the name?

You can call it the result of divine magic, training, or whatever else you feel like. I pick my class based on what skill set I want it to have. If I want to play a warrior who gets everything he can out of his armor and shield, then I go with a fighter and the feats that the Giant presents in one of the Gaming articles. If I want to play a holy warrior whose skill at arms is accompanied by some divine magic, then I play a paladin. If I want to go with a psionic character whose powers are rooted in emotion, then I play a wilder. Combat effectiveness really doesn't come up. If I want to play a character that combines the skills of a rogue, monk, and cleric, then I start trying to find a PrC or multiclass combination that I like. I don't say "OMG, this is an insane welter of multiclassing that does nothing compared to the wizard, so I won't play it!" and my DM will never force me to worry about that, unless he doesn't care whether I stick around.


Not really. If you think the Tarrasque is cool, describe something in system X as the Tarrasque. Conversions only become a hassle when the converter insists on completely equivalent mechanical representation.

The Tarrasque is cool because of his mechanical effects. I can call an ant a Tarrasque, but does that mean that it's really what I want?


Actually, D&D is a broken narrative system. By the RAW, a diplomacy build character can easily turn just about any foe into a staunch ally. A DM has to rewrite the rules just to stop characters from potentially overriding any meaningful roleplay with the diplomacy skill.

Then it's time to rewrite those specific rules about diplomacy. I suppose I did forget about the changes I made to the Diplomacy skill, and I apologize for saying otherwise. That said: in my group's first adventure, one of my players (PaladinBoy to be specific) used a Diplomacy check to turn a Hostile into a Friendly. I told him that this couldn't keep happening, and I said that the effects of that first check would stand, but that from now on we would use a revised Diplomacy rule set. That's the kind of change that I advocate: when something becomes unplayable, change it so that it's not.


It's playable... until you run into the things that make it unplayable. That's not a ringing endorsement.

And the only one of those things my group has run into to date is Diplomacy. First, that is no longer a problem, as I already stated. And second, we were caught in hysterical laughter over the insanity of turning a blood-thirsty, greedy hobgoblin into an ally of a LG wizard. I don't know about you, but anything that I can have that much fun with is a good way to spend my time, broken or no.

[PaladinBoy]

I'm am curious how you design your characters mechanically and plan their progression at all. Class mechanics are almost completely independent from how you want to portray them in the fluff (for example, you can explain a fighter's feats and general prowess as the result of divine power). So what motivates you to actually pick a particular class besides the name?

Usually, I pick a certain class, say wizard, because I like both the way the class is portrayed and its abilities. I pick a PrC the same way; say I pick windwright captain, because I like the fact that it allows me to summon my airship from a mile away and I like the dashing, reckless pilot that the class is portrayed as.

I do plan out my character's development, but I do so with an eye towards whether it makes sense for my character and whether I like the abilities I'll get, as opposed to maximizing combat ability. If I wanted maximum combat firepower, I'd go straight wizard; I would have ignored the PrC that gave me less useful spell-like abilities.


Not really. If you think the Tarrasque is cool, describe something in system X as the Tarrasque. Conversions only become a hassle when the converter insists on completely equivalent mechanical representation.

There's a happy medium somewhere between calling a cute fuzzy bunny in a video game the Tarrasque and insisting that the Tarrasque in your game be exactly adapted so it is exactly identical, for your new game, to the one in the MM.


Actually, D&D is a broken narrative system. By the RAW, a diplomacy build character can easily turn just about any foe into a staunch ally. A DM has to rewrite the rules just to stop characters from potentially overriding any meaningful roleplay with the diplomacy skill.

And......? There are a few good rewrites out there. One of them is in the Gaming section on this site. Most of them are a matter of 10 minutes to read. It's not like we're talking major system change here.


It's playable... until you run into the things that make it unplayable. That's not a ringing endorsement.

The way you put it makes it sound like you run into major problems every session. I don't believe it happens that often, plain and simple. If the things that make it unplayable are so uncommon that you run into them only once in a while if at all, then the endorsement get much better.

[Kultrum]

well you have to figure wizards is running god know how many projects at once. I mean they have Magic: The Gathering, Duelmasters TCG, Neopets TCG, Magic Online, Dungeons & Dragons, d20 Modern, Star Wars, D&D Miniatures, Dreamblade Miniatures, Axis & Allies Miniatures, Star Wars Miniatures, Wizards Books, Mirrorstone Books, Avalon Hill and who know what else? If they were to test every thing they put shelves with every other book then the books would start to go up in price and if that happened then no one would be able to use anything but the core, with no one buying book D&D wouldn't be worth wizards time and eventually they would stop making books all together. So instead of complaining that wizards should test every little thing on the shelve with everything else (which would be the only way to make it without error). Think before you talk

[Innis Cabal]

remember Kultrum there are always going to be people who want to complain even if the answer to their problem is get away from what they are complaining about. And thats why chat rooms and forums were made, so people could do it without fear of public humiliation

[jjpickar]

I don't think D&D is broken for me. It may be for others but not for me. I never dealt with any of the problems like wizards, druids and clerics being to powerful or other abuses.

Of course I've never really had a party that cared much for reading the rules. They mainly make whatever character seems cool to them and we go with the story. I've even had players who've been playing for over three years that still need to be walked through combat every time. But we all have fun.

For others, this may not be the case and they may feel that the system is broken beyond repair. Thankfully I haven't felt that way and will continue to enjoy my unbroken 3.5 D&D.

[Kultrum]

So... are we done? have finally reached the point where i can sy the game is only broken if you play it that way? Can i go to sleep now?

[Indon]

Do you actually use the game mechanics? Spells, levels, classes? As long as you use them, then the issues that are constantly brought up on these boards are not by any means immaterial, because they do affect your game, even in subtle ways (such as how CR and monster power levels are calculated).

No, it's really not at all in the games I play. Our clerics don't have nightsticks (nobody owns a Libris Mortis), our Wizards aren't paranoid enough to take the spotlight, really, it was only my exposure to these forums that taught me anyone thought like this.



I'm am curious how you design your characters mechanically and plan their progression at all. Class mechanics are almost completely independent from how you want to portray them in the fluff (for example, you can explain a fighter's feats and general prowess as the result of divine power). So what motivates you to actually pick a particular class besides the name?

Indeed, it is nice that classes describe abilities and often have wiggle room as to method of development (though I don't actually make much use of it). Personally, sometimes my characters' abilities stem from their personality (Such as a Rogue/Scout/Ranger I have, very much a jack-of-all-trades, rather interested in many different things and a bit larcenous), and sometimes my characters' initial personality stems from a build I've lined up (Such as a Law-worshipping priest I made from an initial "I think I want to play a neutral cleric who channels negative energy, so I can say to an undead 'Cower before my power!'"). I feel there should be constant interaction between character capability and character personality.



Not really. If you think the Tarrasque is cool, describe something in system X as the Tarrasque. Conversions only become a hassle when the converter insists on completely equivalent mechanical representation.

If I think a vampire is cool, and I want to introduce a vampire in a system which doesn't have one, I'm going to need to stat out something that takes damage in sunlight, sucks blood, etc. I can't just take a dinosaur and say, "Hey, it's a Terrasque!" That's not very good interaction between NPC capability and NPC, uh, everything else. Though I guess it's good if all you want is another name for something to kill, but if I just wanted that I could make up names.



Actually, D&D is a broken narrative system. By the RAW, a diplomacy build character can easily turn just about any foe into a staunch ally. A DM has to rewrite the rules just to stop characters from potentially overriding any meaningful roleplay with the diplomacy skill.

...if a player makes a character with the intention of breaking the diplomacy system. Admittedly, it's easier to do that than it is to do many other rule exploits, but it's still pretty obvious what's going on when your groups' power-gamer decides to make a half-elf bard with max charisma.



It's playable... until you run into the things that make it unplayable. That's not a ringing endorsement.

No doubt you've run into that. I haven't. Many others haven't, either, and all we know about it, really, is anecdotes from people who have. It's hard to understand someone who says a game is broken when not only has it never broken on your watch, but to you it seems like you have to go out of your way to break it. Really, though, I guess it comes down to playstyle.

[Kultrum]

darn guess not

[Kultrum]

well I'm going to sleep. My closing remarks shall be: Its only as broken as to make it.

[tsuyoshikentsu]

Here's what I have to say to all of you:

If you want a near-perfectly balanced system, go play Shadowrun 4. If you trust your players enough to play in an unbalanced one, or enjoy the process that leads to system mastery, play D&D.

But do NOT sit here and b**** all day about D&D balance. There's another game out there if you want that.

D&D is a game designed with system mastery in mind: the developers specifically made some options better than others. Some of us enjoy that. If you're not one of them... there's the door.

[Aquillion]

I think people take class balance a little too seriously. When you get down to it, the classes aren't supposed to be completely balanced; what's important is that everyone have something to do all the time so nobody feels completely left out, and that no class be strictly better than another.

Try saying this aloud: "Now, in this adventure, the party must make their way through a dungeon and defeat a high-level wizard..."

Now change it to: "...the party must make their way through a dungeon and defeat a high-level fighter." Try not to laugh.

Notice that this has nothing to do with the mechanics behind either; it doesn't matter what game system you're using or what rulesets you have, the idea of a high-level fighter being a powerful and fearful adversary in the way that a master wizard is is simply absurd on the face of it. There are adventures with high-level fighter-types as the main baddie, sure, but never ones that depend on their abilities as a fighter to carry the day. (A high-level bard could be a worthy adversary in a social campaign where he constantly goes around starting rebellions against the rightful king or whatever, say, but you wouldn't present the adventure as simply "defeat a high-level bard" unless you want the session to end because nobody can stop laughing so hard.)

Magic-users are supposed to end up stronger than warrior-types at the end of their progression. This is, perhaps, one of the most central staples of the fantasy genre: A master wizard is at the top of the food chain. (That's why Conan et. all are always fighting them--because it's impressive.)

There are ways around it, sure, and the fighter class itself could use some touch-ups (it's a little underpowered compared to other warrior-type classes, nevermind wizards), but there's nothing that says that all classes have to have strictly equivalent abilities at all times, and there's certainly nothing saying that all classes have to be equal in PVP (that's not the point of the game anyway.)

In battles between highly-skilled forces in a fantasy setting, spellcasters overwhelmingly determine the direction of the battle. That doesn't mean other classes can't have their place to shine, but overall the power of full spellcasters in D&D isn't a bug; it's a feature, and completely intentional. A few minor fixes could be used to give other classes a bit more of a chance to shine, maybe, to ensure that they always have at least some way to contribute, and maybe even to give casters more significant key weak points that can be exploited, but you can't realistically change the overall dynamic without going to a completely different (low-magic) setting or taking some similarly drastic step, at which point you aren't really playing D&D anymore.

...with that said, there are many individually broken things (from feats to PRCs to items to spells); spellcasters tend to benefit from those more than others since, after all, every spell created is another chance to break something, and spellcasters get many more spells created for them than fighters get feats. (Druids and other polymorph-type abilities are even worse, since they mean every monster is another opportunity to break something, and monsters often aren't even made with that in mind.) But that doesn't mean that 3.5 as a whole is broken; given the expandable nature of the system, it's inevitable that some things would interact in nasty ways. If you use common sense when adding new things, the system as a whole works.

[Yahzi]

broken or not broken is up to the DM. Any DM worth his salt can stop a player from braking the system,...
Arg. That's what broken means - the DM has to fix the printed rules. If the DM wanted to make up the rules, he wouldn't have bought the book in the first place.

We'd just like to buy books that allow us to make up adventures instead of ones that require us to make up rules.

[Justin_Bacon]

I disagree with 90% of your post, specifically the part above quoted. When you say a class is better than another class, what are you judging them on? I'm guessing you are judging them on effectiveness in combat. If that is the case, you are missing a HUGE aspect of D&D.

In general, I agree with you. The core classes generally all have their niches and, if they're suffering, it's usually because someone is playing them in a campaign where their niche doesn't apply. (Lots of people dislike bards, for example. Players in my campaign love them because I tend to prize Spellcraft, Knowledge, and Gather Information as modus operandis for moving the plot forward. When it comes to that, and the social situations of an urban campaign, the bard scores big time.)

The one exception to his, however, IME, is the fighter. And it's where your metric breaks down because once the fighter fails to be effective in combat compared to other classes, the fighter is screwed. He's got absolutely nothing to fall back on.

Now, the fighter is not as busted some people think he is. Lots of people start seeing problems with the fighter around level 10 or so. IME, these are people playing in campaigns where (a) the DM lets the players control the pace at which they encounter challenges; and (b) the party uses that to only run one or two encounters each day. This allows the spellcasters to really pour out everything they've got in one big bang, totally dwarfing the fighter's ability to contribute.

But when the players are not allowed to completely control when they have encounters, the fighter becomes a lot more useful: The group is forced to pace their resources, and the fighter's ability to deliver his most powerful attack every single round, round after round after round, leaves him in a preeminent position.

But this only postpones the problem. Around 15th level or so, the fighter starts under-performing. Partly because, at that point, the magic available to the party makes it considerably easier for them to pace encounters no matter what scenario they're interacting with, but largely because the spellcasters start getting enough spells that, even when they're pacing it out, they're still out-performing the fighters in every contest.

So the fighter needs some help.

[Cyborg Pirate]

...good lord.

"D&D is not broken if you ignore the parts that are broken!" ...?

*mind asplode*

I'm not going to add anything to this. The very lack of basic logic and common sense here hurts me to the bone. Urgh.

[lord_khaine]

i will agree on that, if you actualy have to start ignoring or houseruling things from one of the 4 core books, then i cant see how you can defend its not broken.

[Zincorium]

Alright, my take on this:

I play freeform roleplaying, no rules whatsoever. I also play D&D. Free form works only if you have people who are mature enough to keep themselves in check and who are interested more in the story than in the game aspect, rolling dice and computing modifiers and whatnot.

D&D (by which I mostly mean 3.5) appeals to a broader audience. You have the pure roleplaying, and you have the game mechanics, and the way it's set together you can't separate the two without tweaking the system a bit.

Broken = unplayable. D&D is only truly broken if you aren't having fun, and that's normally due to the people involved rather than rules. However, D&D is not perfect out of the box. It doesn't even attempt to be. You have to interpret, and judge, and alter it to suit the preferences of your group. By doing so, you have increased the fun. You are also no longer playing the general version of D&D, but a specific variant.

Realize, people: D&D doesn't have to fail for absolutely everybody for some people to realize that for their group, it needs fixing. That's the way things are. For someone who has had to fix it, they're not going to care if it's always worked for you.

It is incredibly anti-logic to say that you 'fixed' D&D and then claim that it wasn't broken. If you have to specify rules for druid's wildshape forms, for example, that are not explicit in the PHB, then you have tweaked it. If not tweaking it would have made the game no longer fun, then it was broken, and you have thus fixed it.

[Counterpower]

i will agree on that, if you actualy have to start ignoring or houseruling things from one of the 4 core books, then i cant see how you can defend its not broken.

That does depend on how you define broken. What we (well, this is my opinion if no one else's) are saying is that it's enjoyable and fun to play. Really, as Zincorium put it, broken = unplayable. Considering that I have a group that's still going strong even as we enter the middle levels, we're all enjoying ourselves, and we only worry about rules that directly apply to our experience, D&D is far from unplayable. Sometimes, I have to fix it. I have done so once already, to the rules on Diplomacy skill checks. I'll probably have to fix it again, especially if I follow through on my intents to take my group's current campaign epic. Does that mean it's broken? Possibly. But I defy you to explain to me why I should care about rule exploits and system glitches that have never intruded on my group's gameplay and that can be easily and instantly fixed once they do appear.


"D&D is not broken if you ignore the parts that are broken!"...?

Well, it's a whole lot better than "D&D sucks because of rules that have never come up in my play experience anyway!". Call it a lack of logic if you will, but I don't really care. I'm going to go play D&D. Broken or no, it is still fun.

[Innis Cabal]

and i thought when i woke up this would be dead and buried, silly me really. Yes you have to house rule things, ive had to do it almost since i started playing D&D in 1974. If you do not like it do not cluter the message boards with it, there are some people that are getting very tired of hearing "WE NEED TO FIX CASTING BECUASE SOMEONE IS TO UBER" and ever more tired of here, D&D is broken and thus sucks. We get it, we really do, stop beating the dead horse about it, there are so many other games that you could be playing in the time your using to tell us how 3.5 is broken that its not even funny. Go to your local gaming store, look on a shelf, find something that appeals to YOU, and play it, but for those of us that want something that appeals to everyone so their gaming group can be balanced and fun with all our friends playing, other then the ones that smell like cheetos and B.O. Sure its not perfect, nothing in life is and this should not be any different. Its a game if your not having fun stop it cuase i know i dont spend 30+ dollars on books and dice to sit at a table with people i dont like and not have fun every day i play. No game is perfect, not SR 4, not WoD, none of em are. People dont like going by the RAW and if you do your limiting your game and thus your players

[Maxymiuk]

If you do not like it do not cluter the message boards with it, there are some people that are getting very tired of hearing "WE NEED TO FIX CASTING BECUASE SOMEONE IS TO UBER" and ever more tired of here, D&D is broken and thus sucks. We get it, we really do, stop beating the dead horse about it, there are so many other games that you could be playing in the time your using to tell us how 3.5 is broken that its not even funny.

Right back at you. If you loathe these threads so much, why read them? Just scroll right past. :smallamused:

[Kultrum]

and i thought when i woke up this would be dead and buried, silly me really. Yes you have to house rule things, ive had to do it almost since i started playing D&D in 1974. If you do not like it do not cluter the message boards with it, there are some people that are getting very tired of hearing "WE NEED TO FIX CASTING BECUASE SOMEONE IS TO UBER" and ever more tired of here, D&D is broken and thus sucks. We get it, we really do, stop beating the dead horse about it, there are so many other games that you could be playing in the time your using to tell us how 3.5 is broken that its not even funny. Go to your local gaming store, look on a shelf, find something that appeals to YOU, and play it, but for those of us that want something that appeals to everyone so their gaming group can be balanced and fun with all our friends playing, other then the ones that smell like cheetos and B.O. Sure its not perfect, nothing in life is and this should not be any different. Its a game if your not having fun stop it cuase i know i dont spend 30+ dollars on books and dice to sit at a table with people i dont like and not have fun every day i play. No game is perfect, not SR 4, not WoD, none of em are. People dont like going by the RAW and if you do your limiting your game and thus your players

at least im not the only one who thought this thread would have died last night o well back to the battlements

[Artemician]

and i thought when i woke up this would be dead and buried, silly me really. Yes you have to house rule things, ive had to do it almost since i started playing D&D in 1974. If you do not like it do not cluter the message boards with it, there are some people that are getting very tired of hearing "WE NEED TO FIX CASTING BECUASE SOMEONE IS TO UBER" and ever more tired of here, D&D is broken and thus sucks. We get it, we really do, stop beating the dead horse about it, there are so many other games that you could be playing in the time your using to tell us how 3.5 is broken that its not even funny. Go to your local gaming store, look on a shelf, find something that appeals to YOU, and play it, but for those of us that want something that appeals to everyone so their gaming group can be balanced and fun with all our friends playing, other then the ones that smell like cheetos and B.O. Sure its not perfect, nothing in life is and this should not be any different. Its a game if your not having fun stop it cuase i know i dont spend 30+ dollars on books and dice to sit at a table with people i dont like and not have fun every day i play. No game is perfect, not SR 4, not WoD, none of em are. People dont like going by the RAW and if you do your limiting your game and thus your players

I really have no idea what the hell you're talking about...

You're saying that if people don't like the balance of 3.5, then they should stop playing it and get another system. Fair enough.

Then you go on to say that making houserules breaks the enjoyment of people.

Do you have any idea why people make houserules? So that they can enjoy the game more. Get that into that skull of yours. Nobody here is saying that D&D is the pits, simply that it has some bad points that need to be fixed. So we're fixing them. You have a problem with that?

So nothing is perfect. So? You shouldn't try to make something better, because nothing is perfect?

Just because some people don't have a problem with these rules, is no excuse for not fixing them, because other people have. It's like saying: Cigarettes are not dangerous, because some people don't die from them.

If you really have been playing D&D since 1974, that would make you at least 38 by now. But you're not acting like it. You are not listening to what people say, merely asserting your own opinion that the rule imbalances in D&D don't cause problems to other people (NOTE: NOT yourself) and that people who identify and try to fix them are dumb because "nothing is perfect". You even start with personal insults.

Do you understand what we are saying at all? D&D has certain rules problems. Sometimes they may make a game not fun. So we change them.

Was that really that hard to comprehend?

[Innis Cabal]

i never said house rules makes the game less enjoyable actually, you are taking what i said very out of context. And yes i am older then 38, and no one here is being very mature, so don't try getting on your high horse. Its not hard to understand you don't like things, but coming on a message board and crying about it, dosnt change. And when did i say that the game dosnt have problems becuase alot of people like the rules? I said if you don't like it dont play it, perhaps you should read what someone says instead of skimming it and getting morally outraged becuase someone actually as a solution to the problem? Yes change the rules! By all means change them, i remember they had a whole page dedicated to telling players "THE BOOK IS NOT THE FINAL WORD" but people forget that. But whining and throwing tantrums about it dosnt solve it. And people ARE getting tired of seeing this all over the message boards, to qoute you oh mature one "Get that into that skull of yours"

[Kultrum]

This is in the front of one of my books:

"Role-Playing game Manifesto
These Rules Are Written On Paper, not etched in stone tablets
rules are suggested guidelines, not required edicts
If the rules don't say you cant do something, you can
there are no official answers, only official opinions
When the dice conflict with the story, the story wins
Min/Maxing and Munchkinism aren't problems with the game, there problems with the players
The Game Master has full discretionary power over the game
the game master is to work with, not against players
a game that is not fun is no longer a game-its a chore
This book contains the answers to all things
When the above does not apply make it up"

[Artemician]

i never said house rules makes the game less enjoyable actually, you are taking what i said very out of context. And yes i am older then 38, and no one here is being very mature, so don't try getting on your high horse. Its not hard to understand you don't like things, but coming on a message board and crying about it, dosnt change. And when did i say that the game dosnt have problems becuase alot of people like the rules? I said if you don't like it dont play it, perhaps you should read what someone says instead of skimming it and getting morally outraged becuase someone actually as a solution to the problem? Yes change the rules! By all means change them, i remember they had a whole page dedicated to telling players "THE BOOK IS NOT THE FINAL WORD" but people forget that. But whining and throwing tantrums about it dosnt solve it. And people ARE getting tired of seeing this all over the message boards, to qoute you oh mature one "Get that into that skull of yours"

I'm not getting angry because you suggested that people try out different systems. In fact, I agree with you on that point.

However, there may be many factors stopping people from changing systems, such as familiarity, lack of access to books, so on so forth. D&D is the most successful and popular roleplaying system, and it is likely that it will stay that way.

No-one here is merely whining and throwing tantrums over the inadequacies of D&D rules. We are making an attempt to improve them, so that we can enjoy the game better without changing systems. You seem to think that people are whining, and are not doing anything about what we whine about. This is most definitely not the case, as there have been many quality rewrites of core classes and suggestions for rules improvement on this forum, for example: Fax Celetis' excellent rewrite of the Paladin class, and Bears With Laser's Fighter fix. These changes are all done with the aim of improving the gaming experience. While a game can be unbalanced and fun, sometimes the unbalance is just so much that it impedes the enjoyment of the game. It may not have happened to you, but it has happened to others.

As I have stated in my earlier post, rules rewrites occur so that people can have more fun. Why they become fixated on balance is because imbalance impedes fun.

Finally, if you object so much to seeing threads about game balance on this forum, you can simply take the option to go to another forum. This is following your own logic here.

[Kultrum]

No-one here is merely whining and throwing tantrums over the inadequacies of D&D rules. We are making an attempt to improve them, so that we can enjoy the game better without changing systems.

That is incorrect. While you might actually not be whining, but offering a solution. for every one person like you there are about ten saying "D&D is broken, I don't want to change the rules, it should be perfect blah blah blah"
they make no atempt to fix the problem they just complain about it.

[Innis Cabal]

and i normally do, but i thought seeing "D&D 3.5 isnt broken" would be worth my time and i would find others that think like me, and i did. But then there are the people that came here and just had to shoot the poor guy down. All of us who say its not "broken" have given good arguments to back up the claim. When you dont like something dont use it. Its as simple as that. But people just don't like that and becuase of that they have to show us how we are wrong. Ok it happens to others, but guess what, the enjoyment of the few, or lack there of, really dosnt factor into the equation of making a game. Wizards has to many products to balance everything.

To the other system issue. Lack of familiarty? How do you learn rules? you play the game, that is just an excuse. Lack of access to books. Ok thats a fair one, and can hinder learning new rules. I can't really talk about lack of access, i have a car, internet and a stable bank account that makes it possible and easy to get my hands on books, and its been that way fo a long time. But you have to want to learn new systems, they don't fall into your lap overnight and their not put under your pillow by a fairy. You don't waste the kind of money you do as a gamer not to have fun, thats insanity.

And Kultrum gets another medal for being another voice of reason
My next question to your improvments on this forum or any other for that matter. Yes they are good here, better then alot of places ive seen, but what happens when one of them starts to overshine the rest of the party? Or that some players feel that they are being left out becuase of the persons new class? What comes next? House rules, changes of other class's, and the cycle just continues. So all in all it comes down to the same thing. Its never going to be perfect for everyone, ever anywhere anytime

[Kultrum]

lack of familiarity is something lazy people say.
I taught myself D&D, Vampire, BESM, and im learning heroes unlimited
also w00t thats two medals

[Indon]

That is incorrect. While you might actually not be whining, but offering a solution. for every one person like you there are about ten saying "D&D is broken, I don't want to change the rules, it should be perfect blah blah blah"
they make no atempt to fix the problem they just complain about it.

I don't feel this is being fair.

People who think D&D rules are broken _have_ often tried to fix it; just look at the homebrew section of this very forum (I recommend Fax's Paladin in particular, it adds much variety to the holy warrior). Heck, even people who don't think the game is broken can and do create or tweak things to produce a different game balance for a game they're thinking up.

Since the system lends itself so well to creativity, it seems to me that there really are few people who don't get creative with it.

[Kultrum]

I don't feel this is being fair.

People who think D&D rules are broken _have_ often tried to fix it; just look at the homebrew section of this very forum (I recommend Fax's Paladin in particular, it adds much variety to the holy warrior). Heck, even people who don't think the game is broken can and do create or tweak things to produce a different game balance for a game they're thinking up.

Since the system lends itself so well to creativity, it seems to me that there really are few people who don't get creative with it.

will i never said that people aren't fixing what they perceive as problems, I'm just say a lot of people are just whining and won't lift a finger to do anything about it now if on the other hand you do at least try to fix thing then more power to you

[Rigeld2]

As much as I'm on the "RAW is broken side", I do houserule some things. Most of the time, I dont bother, and since everyone has to clear thier builds through me, its not a real pain. If theyre doing something I dont like, or going to overshine someone else in the party, we talk.

That doesnt mean the rules are fine though.

[Knight_Of_Twilight]

This is, perhaps, one of the most central staples of the fantasy genre: A master wizard is at the top of the food chain. (That's why Conan et. all are always fighting them--because it's impressive.)


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.

[Kultrum]

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

Conan usually comes out on top because if his cunning, or 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.

they do, the point of the BBEG is to be a big climactic battle at the end and what better that a huge all powerful wizard about to destroy the world. by flavor evil wizards work alone of one cause, evil fighters command massive armies and sack the countryside and spread evil for the sake of evil *cough*blackgaurd*cough*
in the end I have fought both and the fighter can be as hard as the wizard if your DM runs it right

EDIT: wow im good at rambleing

[NullAshton]

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.

Yeah, uh... why can't the barbarian just whack the wizard a few times? Barbarian's wizard allies brings down the wizards defenses, barbarian charges over and piledrives the enemy wizard.

[Kultrum]

Yeah, uh... why can't the barbarian just whack the wizard a few times? Barbarian's wizard allies brings down the wizards defenses, barbarian charges over and piledrives the enemy wizard.

that tactic has worked for me many times

[Rigeld2]

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?

[Kultrum]

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?

fighters are supposed to be a meat shield they take hits for the rest of the party thats there job that why heavy armor and shields exist. fighters are not meant to be primary damage dealers after lvl 5 they become the first line of defense.

[Rigeld2]

So, theyre essentially useless after level 5?

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

[Viscount Einstrauss]

Conan usually solos his enemies. So, his class type isn't truly barbarian- it's a super class that gives him several unusual traits. Meanwhile, in D&D, you fight as a team. Thus no one is built to be an unstoppable one man army.

Except for casters at higher levels, but let's just say I said this to avoid the future mentioning of exactly this and then completely neglect the fact that it was even said in the first place. Proactive anti-derailing, let's say.