chaos_redefined
2015-09-22, 08:15 AM
This is a series of quotes from JanusJones to people on the WotC forums.
Copied from here (http://community.wizards.com/forum/previous-editions-character-optimization/threads/1153831)
Some formatting was lost, because... way too much.
I feel the game is unbalanced, and as the sort who just has to mess with the game rules, I've come to you for information.
I would like to change the rules for the Druid, Cleric, and Wizard(and maybe the Psion if you guys think its necessary) to make it more difficult/impossible for them to fulfill the front line fighter role better than physical classes.
What I ask for is an example of an optimized build for melee for Druid, Cleric and Wizard(Psion if necessary) so I can see what I need to attack.
The one thing I do ask is to explain the method/tricks, and to explain how the build works at lower levels(3-15), since that is where the majority of my game will take place.
Perhaps - and I'm just putting this out there - what's needed is not a nerf, but rather an improvement in the OTHER classes. Consider: casters currently (and I do mean ALL casters, not just CODzilla) are, at all but the lowest levels, FAR more effective than other builds. Melee fighters can't come close to keeping up damage-wise.
But does this mean that casters are broken?
I fought with this question for a loong while, and my end conclusion (after much discussion with optimization-savvy friends and MORE than a little playtesting) was, simply put: no.
The problem isn't overpowered casters - they're actually just where they should be. They're able to handle - with the help of a party - encounters that are appropriate for their level. I think most of the problem arises from DMs who play monsters primarily as combat statistics, without looking at spell-like and supernatural abilities. Most of the worst things enemies can do to you have NOTHING to do with damage.
Consider, for instance, a Balor. Most DMs see the big Strength and the flaming whip, think "It worked in LotR, baby!", and start rolling to hit. Most DMs ignore things like Blasphemy, which can pretty much dismantle a good party in a single round. That's not even TOUCHING Power Word: Stun, Insanity, or Dominate Monster. Used correctly, those abilities will prove a serious problem for casters - for melee types, they spell certain doom.
A well-played monster will eat ANY melee type alive. That goes even for the spellcasters, in fact - at higher levels they stop polymorphing and slugging away and start getting smart - casting spells that force enemy saves and impose serious limitations on the enemy, dispel effects, limit mobility, entangle, nauseate, charm, and otherwise do all they can to hobble their foes.
The problem isn't that casters are OVERPOWERED, it's that fighter-types are pathetically underpowered.
Is it possible to make effective fighters (note I'm using this term in the general sense, not in the class-specific one) using the current rules? Yes, but it takes a LOT of effort and the result is, at best, two-dimensional. What's worse, even the most cleverly designed melee type will still, in the end, lose out to casters. Tome of Battle went a LOOOOONG way towards solving the crippling weakness attached to playing a melee character, granted. Casters are still better, but ToB has made melee fun again - and flavorful, too!
But I'm off-topic, here. What I'd like to get at is that perhaps "warriors" need a boost more than casters need a nerf. I'd suggest allowing Tome of Battle - it'll do wonders for helping non-caster party members pull their weight.
Another possibility would be a "boost + nerf" approach. If you wanted to power-down the melee capacity of casters, the first step would be to use the newest polymorph rules - the ones that limit you to a single form and strip you of your casting for the duration of the shift. Remove Persistent Spell and Divine Metamagic from your game, and throw out Divine Power and Righteous Might. Make the druids in your game play the Shapeshift variant from the PHB II or force them to use the "elemental aspect" variant in Unearthed Arcana (which provides, instead of impressive form-shifts, minor buffs).
Add to this the Tome of Battle, which will give any melee enthusiast a chance to shine, and you *might* have a more balanced game.
On the other hand, if your players don't know what they're doing, this may not be necessary. People who aren't optimizers very rarely realize what's possible with casters - sorcs and wizards whine about being too weak, and clerics and druids groan about being the party's band-aid box. The problems only start to crop up when they do their research and figure out what spells are really capable of.
I've posed this in other threads, but the main issue comes down to three things:
Depending on a roll is always bad,
Range is always good, and . . .
Damage is never the issue.
The combination is what leaves fighter-types so underpowered. A 1st level Fighter, Barbarian, or even Warblade can do a lot of damage, it's true. But they have to ROLL to hit! No matter how big your bonuses get, this means that there will always be circumstances in which you fail. Worse yet, most soldiers depend on melee distance to deal their damage. Place a foe on difficult terrain, in the air, in the water, or pretty much anywhere not readily accessible and a melee character's abilities are nearly completely neutralized.
Casters, on the other hand, have advantages in place of their counterparts' disadvantages. They don't NEED to roll for most of their most effective abilities - they simply wave their hands and an effect occurs. What's even better is that most of the best things they can do are possible at range. Not only do they not have to roll, they force the ENEMY to roll - and, like attack rolls, saves ALWAYS fail on a 1. Thus instead of the caster having a chance to fail, the enemy does.
Then there's the fact that unlike warriors, who have to worry about AC and DR, casters have the ability to pick and choose how they assault targets. If they face a frail spellcaster, they can force Fortitude saves. Against big, clumsy monsters there are Ref save spells, and for the mentally challenged the deadly Will save spells. In other words, spellcasters have the versatility to exploit any given foe's weakness. They also have utility spells to cover other contingencies - Freedom of Movement, Water Breathing, Identify, Fly, Clairaudience/Clairvoyance . . . the list goes on and on.
Finally, there's the fact that they, unlike 99% of warrior builds, have the ability to affect CROWDS of foes. They're not limited to thumping single enemies one at a time like a kid on a Whack-a-Mole machine. Nope - they get to wield a mallet big enough to hit ALL the holes at the same time, meaning they'll always get a better score than the fighter - no matter how fast his reflexes are.
The real insult-to-injury part is the one you addressed in your initial post. Not only are they better in combat, better out of combat, and more versatile, they're able to do what nearly any non-casting class can do - and do it BETTER. A mage can easily grab more sneak attack dice than a 20th level Rogue, more melee combat ability than a fighter, and still have the ability to do all the other things casters do so well.
I think the issue that gets so many "Fighters Don't Suck" threads started is an issue of genre. Ultimately, all us folks who play DnD do so because it's an escape we're fond of. We like the fantasy-world genre, and, having cut our teeth on novels and movies where mighty warriors with thews of iron do battle with the forces of evil, we have certain expectations. You don't see characters in popular fiction or film employ different tactics in every battle; rather, each well-crafted hero or heroine will vary his or her approach somewhat from encounter to encounter but still, in the main, stick to a thematic style of combat. Fighters will swing their steely blades and wizards will hurl eldritch energy. Wizards WON'T, however, suddenly turn into 12 headed hydras, strike at vital points like assassins, or simply wave a hand to reverse gravity on the fighter and leave him stuck to the cieling.
The thing is that we WANT melee combat. We WANT grim, hardened warriors who cut a swath through their enemies, hewing them down in vicious sprays of blood and gore. We want heroes who sweat and grunt and fear and grit their teeth. Conan the Barbarian wasn't about wizards and spells - it was about a sneaky thug who cut his enemies into chunky salsa.
So here's the sorry fact: DnD has let us down. We all want our expectations of the brawny behemoths of our collective unconscious to be fulfilled when we play DnD. We want to be HEROES (or equally capitalized VILLAINS) - and when we see our lovingly crafted avatars standing tall in the midst of battle, we want to feel proud.
Instead, we see them looking like midgets next to scrawny guys in pointy hats.
It's demeaning. It's frustrating. And it's enough to make a lot of people delusional. They insist that it's just not true - casters AREN'T more powerful than fighters, they COULDN'T be! They scream and rage at optimizers who point out the incredible advantages and immense power offered by casters, furious that their heroic archetypes are being dragged through the dirt.
But it's not the optimizers' fault. It's a game mechanic. Whether it's a flaw or not is open to debate, but the flat fact of the system gimps the "mighty hero" and hands the game to casters on a silver platter. With a garnish of parsely.
Woof. You'll have to pardon me. There was a lot there that had more to do with other threads than this one. My apologies. My conclusion, however, is simple:
Perhaps it's warriors who need a buff, not casters who need a nerf.
Using Half-Minotaur at +1 level adjustment with the stat adjustments from a size increase isn't optimized, it's pretty much broken. A feral half-ogre barely matches the stats that that template gives you, and that is a total of +3 LA.
Truthfully, I think they were intending to say you also get the -1 AC and -1 attack when they mentioned the size increase. Even without it, it's still a bit overpowered (reach plus good stats and natural armor is a +2 pretty easily).
Sigh. The old "that's unbalanced because it's great at low levels" argument.
That template is, in fact, a BALANCED one. Not at level 1, granted, but as levels progress?
Let's face facts: no matter how tough that Hulk looks on paper, he's got a +13 Will save. All that means is that by 20th level some ridiculously powerful caster has got a very handy, beefy bodyguard.
LA templates without the buyoff rules are very rarely overpowered except at lower levels of play. Heck, even then the loss of a Hit Die usually cripples the character and makes him/her/it a glass cannon - one hit and they're down, maybe even dead.
So what does a template or LA do for you? It gives you a STATIC benefit that does not increase as your level increases (there are a few notable exceptions to this rule, what with the arguments for even class HD improving Feral and Phrenic abilities, but I think that in general all templated abilities run off racial HD . . . maybe that argument belongs in the Book of Heavily Debated Topics!). Class levels, on the other hand, provide a SCALING benefit - for every level you gain, you gain abilities appropriate to your level.
Granted, it's easy to lose sight of the immense profit possible with scaling, class-based benefits when you're building a melee character. Melee characters (and indeed, non-casters as a whole) don't really get scaling benefits - instead, they get +1 BaB per level and some mediocre (generally speaking) plusses. When all you get for going up a level is a +1 to hit, +4 to Strength starts looking REALLY sexy.
Casters, on the other hand, gain scaling benefits that become immensely useful rather quickly. Sure, there are "dead levels" in which PCs only gain one more slot of an existing spell level per day, but with wisely chosen spells that's one more encounter per day without breaking a sweat.
My point is simply this: let the man have his fun with the Half-Minotaur. For non-ToB melee types (and even FOR ToB melee types, for that matter!), that LA makes playing more fun, more flavorful, and doesn't really do that much for them. Better yet, they get to have the rewarding FEELING that they're rough and buff and tough and stuff, and can get their satisfying one-hit one-kill moments in while the casters do the hard work (catching flyers, incorporeal creatures, etc.). In fact, allowing templates that are "broken" like the Half-Minotaur can make a DM's job MUCH easier - when the PC gets terrified by a fear aura, dominated, charmed, area-of-effect-ed (think GREASE, Impeding Stones from Cityscape, or the Frostburn equivalent of Grease that puts down an ice slick), nuked by blasphemy, holy word, imprisoned, etc. etc., you can always just say:
"Hey dude - I gave you that template. What are you whining about?"
You have to understand that this comes from a very passionate place. You see, I LOVE non-casters. What's more, I HATE casters - I hate playing them, building them, fighting them - just plain straight HATE 'em. But the problem is that in this game non-casters DON'T GET NICE THINGS - and for some reason everybody seems to be okay with that. It's unclear to me whether it has something to do with most folks making ineffective and weak casters (focusing on direct damage spells and other non-Aoo, non-save or lose, non-battlefield control spells) or that the fantasy gaming community, as a whole, has accepted the idea that fighters swing swords and wizards ALTER THE FABRIC OF REALITY.
Can you see the imbalance there?
Anyhoo, this is the same argument I make for ToB. Most folks who don't like ToB quibble with two things: 1) a misguided perception of too much power and/or 2) the argument that "if you can do it all day, it's borked." Neither of these arguments hold up under close scrutiny, of course - the abilities of a 20th level Tome character don't measure up to those of a well-built 20th level caster, and "at-will abilities" sounds great until you realize that 99.9% of them are single-target, require an attack roll, and often allow a save. With the same standard action it takes a Tome of Battle character to fire off a 9th level maneuver and take a single enemy down, a caster can eliminate an entire squadron. Tome characters NEED to have at-will abilities; without them, they'd be STUCK.
So my bottom line as a DM has been the following: take an LA if you want to - go for it! Enjoy the hell out of your freaky-deeky melee monsters. You're not even CLOSE to being overpowered - hell, a 1st level color spray will take you out all the way to ECL 5, and by that time casters have 3rd level spells - you're just not in the same league. But if that's your playstyle and it makes you happy, go to town - it doesn't break, bend, or even mildly unbalance the game.
Systematically, little to nothing changes.
In terms of fun, it can make someone's day.
To me, that's just the definition of "role" playing. ;)
P.S. Just to finish the rant, I thought I'd add that I apply the same logic to supplements - the more the merrier. Every supplement out there adds IMMENSE amounts of power to casters . . . and generally very little for your average board-swinger. If you really want to control power, give access to feats from any book but spells from the SRD alone - and even then casters will STILL be way ahead. Really, though, it all comes down to this:
You only know what's broken if you know how to BUILD.
Personally, I help my players craft the most efficient, powerful, and effective characters they can - they NEED it! Without well-built and heroic characters, they don't enjoy themselves (no one likes to play a hero who spend a lot of time looking un-heroically ineffective) and the enemies of their CR TEAR THEM APART.
Incidentally, I do think that part of the problem is that most DMs don't know how to read a monster entry. I remember playing in a game in which the party walked out onto a narrow stone bridge over a deep chasm, only to have a hideous skeletal demon surge up out of the depths to harry us. The monster entry read "attacks with swoops and claws." The thing had ACID FOG, BLASPHEMY, and CLOUDKILL as spell-like abilities.
Clawing and swooping? For god's sakes, WHY?
Everything should, of course, be tailored to fit the group and the DM. Naturally if your DM isn't savvy about special abilities or spellcasting he may not be ready for a properly optimized team of adventurers. Still, it's worth noting that a DM who does know how to run his monsters and outlaws things like LAs and splatbooks with "too powerful for players" is being rather unfair - in effect, rigging the game. The DM shouldn't have to rig the game - it's already rigged, and rigged in his favor!
The goal isn't a contest between DM and players, but rather a collaborative story-telling experience in which everyone contributes. The goal is to create a story with real, believable tension (people actually risk death on a regular basis!), larger-than-life, powerful fantasy heroes (nobody plays d20 because they like the idea of running peasants with pitchforks - they play to enjoy the thrill of being a mighty-thewed warrior or a powerful mage!), and frightening, horrible threats.
To that end, I'd like to turn this into an appeal:
Gamers of the world, unite under the banner of DIVERSITY! Allow bizarre templates, races, and bloodlines - is this not FANTASY? Permit feats and classes from any and every source you have access to! Punish not the pitiful warrior, but do your best to uplift him from his miserable state by granting him use of that which he needs to achieve! Accept ye all character concepts, be they brilliant or misguided, but help your fellow gamer to craft a BETTER character whenever possible! Is this game not open-ended, and do we not CRAVE new supplements, feats, classes, and spells? If it be so, then let us play this game unto its fullest potential, and delight in the cornucopia of diverse and flavorful delicacies only d20 can offer! If this game be designed to sell extra books and we choose to play it, do we not by playing concede that we LOVE the bounty of various rules and expansions it offers? Fear not imbalance, but rather celebrate the beauty of the myriad ideas that fuel our collective conception of FANTASY! War ye not with your fellow gamers, lest ye forget that verily this game was granted unto us that we might HAVE FUN!
For ours is the power and the glory of the immortal imagination, Amen.
Seriously, though - I think the LA system is borked anyhoo, and that even the most "underpriced" of templates fails to equal the potential power of a class level. I think I saw a larger issue that irks me, here: people consistently claim that various things are "broken" when some of the worst and most unreasonably unbalanced classes in the game are in the PHB: CoDzilla, anyone?
My argument is not meant to be a negative rant, but rather a positive exhortation to all those who play d20 to recognize the wonderful flavor possible when you embrace diversity. Play with every splatbook, web enhacement, dragon or dungeon you can get your hands on! YES, there will always be broken builds in d20 - but limiting supplements won't get rid of that imbalance. ALLOWING MORE supplements and sources will create opportunities to be powerful, yet not limited in choice - to be able to create a truly CREATIVE character who can hold his own.
Broken is all up to the group. My argument is that if the group is fully informed and knows what it's doing, that it will see that things like the Half-Minotaur AREN'T broken, whereas things like DRUIDS are.
An example:
NineInchNall, the author of the Shadowcraft Mage Handbook, and I are old pals. We are paying in a PbP game on another forum, and the DM there allowed only PHB, Completes, and Races. I wanted to make a non-caster, and without ToB found myself crippled. Non-casters need a variety of good stats; casters need only one. Non-casters need a lot of supplements to make their meager class abilities work for them; casters need only the SRD. Non-casters need a large range of PrCs; casters don't need PrCs at all, but can do just fine with one or two if they feel like it.
I asked to play a Dragonfire Adept - it's my thing, you know.
The DM's reply?
"I'm worried it would be broken."
NineInchNall was meanwhile happily statting out a 10th level SHADOWCRAFT MAGE - a character who is constantly invisible, can cast spontaneously cast ridiculously heightened evocation and conjuration spells SILENTLY all day long, and is generally a huge pain in the butt.
But the DM was worried about ME. Because I wanted to play something that had "at-will" abilities.
My point, in essence, is that limiting supplements does NOT prevent broken-ness; limiting supplements simply screws many players out of fun, playable options for the kinds of characters they like to run. Templates are the same way - it may sound overpowered for a +1, but give me another caster level ANY DAY and I'll show you REAL power.
My plea is simple: acknowledge that no matter what you allow there will be broken-ness! Acknowledge that templates - unless they're a +0 LA - aren't broken - they're underpowered! Allowing templates isn't dangerous - it's just good DM-ing; your player gets to enjoy a weird and entertaining build and ends up sacrificing power - usually quite a bit, in the long-run.
Hmm. I agree - not balanced if the DM's using the LA rules. But then again, it's sort of like taking classes, isn't it?
I mean, some templates are going to be inherently BETTER than others - I don't think anybody is going to argue that the LA rules as written make sense or work to balance everything with a +1 with everything else that has a +1. For instance, Half-Giants are just plain worse than Goliaths - there's very little argument there (except if maybe you're DESPERATE for power points . . . and even then!).
So in the same way that some classes are inherently BETTER than others (Warblades and Crusaders are inherently BETTER than Barbarians and Fighters, Druids are inherently BETTER than Spirit Shamans, etc.), some templates are always going to be inherently BETTER than others. Hey, even WEAPONS aren't equal - why, if you wanted a one-handed weapon, would you EVER choose a club over a mace? Cause you want to be able to throw it 10 ft.? And isn't part of the game allowing the players the ability to figure out what is 1) effective and 2) helps them do what they want to?
Here's another way to put it: if they AREN'T using the Half-Minotaur, is one of the other templates mentioned going to be as effective for the +1 LA? If it isn't, is forcing him to use a worse template somehow going to make things MORE FAIR for everyone else, or is it just going to screw his character? We don't know what kind of characters are going to be in his party, but it's reasonable to assume that there isn't going to be another "big thug" character. After all, d20 is all about party play, and I don't think I've played with a single group that didn't discuss roles and avoiding overlap before statting out characters.
With that in mind, how does letting him take Half-Minotaur hurt anyone? He won't be over-powered, if you accept my arguments above (static benefit, still WAY less effective than scaling class abilities, still TOTALLY vulnerable to spells/spell-likes/supernatural, limited to melee - really, in the broad sense of the word, a d20 cripple - a one-trick pony; the one trick he knows he does well, but so many high-level situations will straight flatten him). In fact, the ONLY THING the template will do is give him access to some abilities and a class that he thinks are groovy.
That hardly seems as if it will have any effect on game balance, doesn't it?
This is exactly my point in my above rant: that just because something isn't balanced with the REST OF THE GAME doesn't mean that it's broken or that it shouldn't be allowed. Some templates, feats, classes, and abilities will ALWAYS be better than others - the whole point of this forum is to FIND them and SHARE them! None of these can be broken unless there exists a significant power differential not between the ability in question and some of the abilities in the game, but between the ability in question and the abilities of the other PCs and the enemies. Moreover, there's always the question of overlap - even if a PC possess massive power in one dimension, he is still reliant on his allies for all the dimensions that he can't handle - and which they will be MORE OPTIMIZED to deal with.
Some of you may be wondering at this point: but Brother JJ, I'm running a module! How on earth do I ensure that my wonderfully diverse, multiple-splatbook-enabled, stylish, efficient, and POWERFUL characters don't eat the unoptimized encounters for breakfast?
Fear not, my child. For the way is like water, and can change its shape to accommodate any eventuality.
Firstly, know ye that most modules are well-optimized, and are designed to challenge spellcasters - verily, they who require fewer supplements to achieve greatness.
Second, know ye that no matter the lameness of the creature that a module presents, you, o optimizer, can cure its lameness, even so that it may RUN again, not merely walk. Read on, and all will become clear.
EVERYTHING hinges on tactics.
Exemplis gratis:
I was playing a level 1 Dragonfire Adept - a Whispergnome with Entangling Exhalation, Power Surge, and Shape Breath (see the DFA Handbook for more on the exact tactic, but basically this nabs a 30 ft. cone of entangling breath weapon ever 3rd round - breathe, wait, wait, breathe - etc.). Flaws account for the extra feats, by the by.
I met two stone golems. I fought them (something the module did not think would/could happen). I killed them both.
The EXP calculator on the d20srd told me I should get 0 experience - because TWO CR 11 critters should be "impossible" for a single level 1 character to defeat.
But not with miracle-working power of TACTICS!
See, those CR 11 critters had no ranged attacks, no energy resistance, and a speed of 20 ft. per round. Whilst entangles, they could move 20 ft. with a double move . . . leaving no ability to attack. Alls I had to do was play around with diagonal movement and just stick n' move, stick n' move.
I went up to level 7 after my first encounter. It made me happy in the pants. Of course, my little Whispergnome is probably the poorest 7th level character in the universe.
But I digress.
The CR system is completely illogical and arbitrary, and really presents only the crudest and most broad idea of how challenging an encounter might be. As a DM, I simply go into every adventure comfy and secure in the knowledge that my optimization skeelz guarantee that I can kick any given encounter to make it a challenge for my players.
Exemplis gratis:
My 6th level dungeon-crawling party, a bang-up mercenary menace in closed quarters, ran into a red dragon. Simply by adding Flyby Breath (Dragonlance) and Maximize Breath, I nearly nuked the lot of them into crispy chicken parts. The first pass by that bad boy left them all quaking (and sent a couple running like girls), and that fight has gone down as one of their truly "epic encounter" moments - and all it took from me, the DM, was the re-appropriation of two measly feats.
Feats, I find, are the easiest, quickest, and most straightforward way to ramp up an encounter. Usually I know something needs to change when the encounter is with a melee thug-monster - without special abilities, the CR of most critters is BADLY overrated. In lieu of special abilities, fiddle with feats to make the encounter scary!
Exemplis gratis:
My guys are going to be running into a couple of Huge fire elementals next game. Oooooh - big things are scary, I hear you say. But wait - all they do is beat things with flaming fists - NOT something worth much, my friend, against a tactically savvy party. A few spells and it's all over.
So what to do?
Simple! Swap out some lousy feats like "spring attack" (bleah!) for Martial Maneuver + Martial Stance! That grabs you the constricting stance, which sets you up for Crush - a feat from Savage Species. It lets you FALL on enemies to PIN them. MULTIPLE ENEMIES. Who then take flaming, constricting grapple damage of DOOM!
I'm not arguing everyone should buy or pirate the books; just that if they DO have them, they should USE them. I'm also careful to suggest that gamers SHARE knowledge - that everyone should not have to optimize "solo," but rather compile knowledge and information so that EVERYONE GETS THE CHANCE TO PLAY THE CHARACTER HE OR SHE WOULD ENJOY MOST. Moreover, you will note that I very SPECIFICALLY advocate playing "at the level of the group" and that one should always endeavor to help your fellow players (AND DM!) level it UP if necessary. Of COURSE the DM can "send everyone home with his tail between his legs." Part of my point is that BECAUSE the game is rigged and the DM is in complete control, it is patently RIDICULOUS to assume that giving the players access to more supplements will somehow "break" his ability to challenge the party. In fact, it's flat COUNTER-LOGICAL.
It all boils down to these two statements:
EVERYONE SHOULD BE ABLE TO PLAY THE CHARACTER HE OR SHE WOULD ENJOY MOST
and
VARIETY HELPS PEOPLE DO THAT WITHOUT UNDULY IMBALANCING THE GAME
Character classes are not equal. It's flat FACT that Clerics and Druids are BETTER than the other base classes. The same is true of feats, equipment, spells - NONE are equal. NONE. Therefore, the idea that preventing use of sources is somehow preventing "imbalance" is completely farcical. You can easily make an incredibly strong character using only the PHB. Unfortunately, that player will be limited to choosing Cleric or Druid. That limits the flavor of the game; saying "if you want to be truly heroic, you can only play one of these two archetypes" is a ridiculous and offensive attitude.
You'll argue that what you're really saying is that "every character archetype should be playable and viable regardless." I agree whole-heartedly. The problem comes in execution - you seem to think that somehow, magically, the DM should be able to micro-manage every encounter so that even the suck-tacular classes and builds find a way to be useful (despite inherent system imbalance and badly designed and weak abilities). I think that's TOO MUCH for a DM to manage!
Instead of pretending that "we'll all have more fun if the DM gimps the heroes and everybody sucks" or that "I'm a ninja even though I can't do anything that ninjas can," I'm advocating allowing enough supplements that people can actually PLAY the heroes they WANT to. Sure, not everybody will have the knowledge or the supplements, but that's why you SHARE. After all, as I point OUT in the Gospels, the WHOLE POINT OF GAMING IS FUN! It is, to quote myself, "a collective storytelling experience" - NOT a conflict between players and DMs.
The whole "imbalance" argument is somehow predicated on the idea that, if we give those players some supplements, they'll get out of hand - we'll lose control, and they'll end up RULING THE WORLD!
No they won't. They have a vested interest in play being challenging and fun, too! If you allow more versatility and resources, then all you do is allow for more flexible, interesting, and varied character builds. Plus, you allow your players to enjoy iconic heroes who actually live up to their archetypes, which is better than giving them the disappointing, frustrating, and ultimately NOT-FUN experience of TRYING to play a character they'll enjoy and finding out the hard way that it SUCKS. I find it highly unlikely that anyone worth playing with would actually bring something like Pun-Pun to the table - that would be completely asinine and pointless, and would ruin the game. If you're in a group with someone who actively does things that ruin the game and can't be reasoned with, maybe you better kick him out.
Let me summarize:
I am advocating that groups work together to build strong players, strong threats, and strong stories.
I am advocating for diversity allowing MORE fun, not somehow destroying it.
I am NOT advocating everyone buy more supplements.
I am NOT advocating that one player should monopolize the game action by playing a vastly more powerful character.
Outlawing may be easier, it's true. But if you're going to outlaw, you might as well not play. The SRD is broken, so why on earth should you even bother? This is the equivalent of saying "since there are some emergent problems with new technology, we should all just wear loincloths, live in the forest, and poke people with sticks."
There are very few TRULY "broken" things - in ANY book.
Most of what people call "broken" is just powerful.
And most of what is thought of as "powerful" ISN'T really - it's just MUCH better than what you can do with the SRD.
And those things that are MUCH better than the SRD are usually for non-casters.
And non-casters are CRIPPLED to begin with.
ERGO:
When people say "OMG - BORKED" and outlaw something, they are usually doing the equivalent of preventing a crippled guy from buying a crutch, not giving a bazooka to a ninja.
Copied from here (http://community.wizards.com/forum/previous-editions-character-optimization/threads/1153831)
Some formatting was lost, because... way too much.
I feel the game is unbalanced, and as the sort who just has to mess with the game rules, I've come to you for information.
I would like to change the rules for the Druid, Cleric, and Wizard(and maybe the Psion if you guys think its necessary) to make it more difficult/impossible for them to fulfill the front line fighter role better than physical classes.
What I ask for is an example of an optimized build for melee for Druid, Cleric and Wizard(Psion if necessary) so I can see what I need to attack.
The one thing I do ask is to explain the method/tricks, and to explain how the build works at lower levels(3-15), since that is where the majority of my game will take place.
Perhaps - and I'm just putting this out there - what's needed is not a nerf, but rather an improvement in the OTHER classes. Consider: casters currently (and I do mean ALL casters, not just CODzilla) are, at all but the lowest levels, FAR more effective than other builds. Melee fighters can't come close to keeping up damage-wise.
But does this mean that casters are broken?
I fought with this question for a loong while, and my end conclusion (after much discussion with optimization-savvy friends and MORE than a little playtesting) was, simply put: no.
The problem isn't overpowered casters - they're actually just where they should be. They're able to handle - with the help of a party - encounters that are appropriate for their level. I think most of the problem arises from DMs who play monsters primarily as combat statistics, without looking at spell-like and supernatural abilities. Most of the worst things enemies can do to you have NOTHING to do with damage.
Consider, for instance, a Balor. Most DMs see the big Strength and the flaming whip, think "It worked in LotR, baby!", and start rolling to hit. Most DMs ignore things like Blasphemy, which can pretty much dismantle a good party in a single round. That's not even TOUCHING Power Word: Stun, Insanity, or Dominate Monster. Used correctly, those abilities will prove a serious problem for casters - for melee types, they spell certain doom.
A well-played monster will eat ANY melee type alive. That goes even for the spellcasters, in fact - at higher levels they stop polymorphing and slugging away and start getting smart - casting spells that force enemy saves and impose serious limitations on the enemy, dispel effects, limit mobility, entangle, nauseate, charm, and otherwise do all they can to hobble their foes.
The problem isn't that casters are OVERPOWERED, it's that fighter-types are pathetically underpowered.
Is it possible to make effective fighters (note I'm using this term in the general sense, not in the class-specific one) using the current rules? Yes, but it takes a LOT of effort and the result is, at best, two-dimensional. What's worse, even the most cleverly designed melee type will still, in the end, lose out to casters. Tome of Battle went a LOOOOONG way towards solving the crippling weakness attached to playing a melee character, granted. Casters are still better, but ToB has made melee fun again - and flavorful, too!
But I'm off-topic, here. What I'd like to get at is that perhaps "warriors" need a boost more than casters need a nerf. I'd suggest allowing Tome of Battle - it'll do wonders for helping non-caster party members pull their weight.
Another possibility would be a "boost + nerf" approach. If you wanted to power-down the melee capacity of casters, the first step would be to use the newest polymorph rules - the ones that limit you to a single form and strip you of your casting for the duration of the shift. Remove Persistent Spell and Divine Metamagic from your game, and throw out Divine Power and Righteous Might. Make the druids in your game play the Shapeshift variant from the PHB II or force them to use the "elemental aspect" variant in Unearthed Arcana (which provides, instead of impressive form-shifts, minor buffs).
Add to this the Tome of Battle, which will give any melee enthusiast a chance to shine, and you *might* have a more balanced game.
On the other hand, if your players don't know what they're doing, this may not be necessary. People who aren't optimizers very rarely realize what's possible with casters - sorcs and wizards whine about being too weak, and clerics and druids groan about being the party's band-aid box. The problems only start to crop up when they do their research and figure out what spells are really capable of.
I've posed this in other threads, but the main issue comes down to three things:
Depending on a roll is always bad,
Range is always good, and . . .
Damage is never the issue.
The combination is what leaves fighter-types so underpowered. A 1st level Fighter, Barbarian, or even Warblade can do a lot of damage, it's true. But they have to ROLL to hit! No matter how big your bonuses get, this means that there will always be circumstances in which you fail. Worse yet, most soldiers depend on melee distance to deal their damage. Place a foe on difficult terrain, in the air, in the water, or pretty much anywhere not readily accessible and a melee character's abilities are nearly completely neutralized.
Casters, on the other hand, have advantages in place of their counterparts' disadvantages. They don't NEED to roll for most of their most effective abilities - they simply wave their hands and an effect occurs. What's even better is that most of the best things they can do are possible at range. Not only do they not have to roll, they force the ENEMY to roll - and, like attack rolls, saves ALWAYS fail on a 1. Thus instead of the caster having a chance to fail, the enemy does.
Then there's the fact that unlike warriors, who have to worry about AC and DR, casters have the ability to pick and choose how they assault targets. If they face a frail spellcaster, they can force Fortitude saves. Against big, clumsy monsters there are Ref save spells, and for the mentally challenged the deadly Will save spells. In other words, spellcasters have the versatility to exploit any given foe's weakness. They also have utility spells to cover other contingencies - Freedom of Movement, Water Breathing, Identify, Fly, Clairaudience/Clairvoyance . . . the list goes on and on.
Finally, there's the fact that they, unlike 99% of warrior builds, have the ability to affect CROWDS of foes. They're not limited to thumping single enemies one at a time like a kid on a Whack-a-Mole machine. Nope - they get to wield a mallet big enough to hit ALL the holes at the same time, meaning they'll always get a better score than the fighter - no matter how fast his reflexes are.
The real insult-to-injury part is the one you addressed in your initial post. Not only are they better in combat, better out of combat, and more versatile, they're able to do what nearly any non-casting class can do - and do it BETTER. A mage can easily grab more sneak attack dice than a 20th level Rogue, more melee combat ability than a fighter, and still have the ability to do all the other things casters do so well.
I think the issue that gets so many "Fighters Don't Suck" threads started is an issue of genre. Ultimately, all us folks who play DnD do so because it's an escape we're fond of. We like the fantasy-world genre, and, having cut our teeth on novels and movies where mighty warriors with thews of iron do battle with the forces of evil, we have certain expectations. You don't see characters in popular fiction or film employ different tactics in every battle; rather, each well-crafted hero or heroine will vary his or her approach somewhat from encounter to encounter but still, in the main, stick to a thematic style of combat. Fighters will swing their steely blades and wizards will hurl eldritch energy. Wizards WON'T, however, suddenly turn into 12 headed hydras, strike at vital points like assassins, or simply wave a hand to reverse gravity on the fighter and leave him stuck to the cieling.
The thing is that we WANT melee combat. We WANT grim, hardened warriors who cut a swath through their enemies, hewing them down in vicious sprays of blood and gore. We want heroes who sweat and grunt and fear and grit their teeth. Conan the Barbarian wasn't about wizards and spells - it was about a sneaky thug who cut his enemies into chunky salsa.
So here's the sorry fact: DnD has let us down. We all want our expectations of the brawny behemoths of our collective unconscious to be fulfilled when we play DnD. We want to be HEROES (or equally capitalized VILLAINS) - and when we see our lovingly crafted avatars standing tall in the midst of battle, we want to feel proud.
Instead, we see them looking like midgets next to scrawny guys in pointy hats.
It's demeaning. It's frustrating. And it's enough to make a lot of people delusional. They insist that it's just not true - casters AREN'T more powerful than fighters, they COULDN'T be! They scream and rage at optimizers who point out the incredible advantages and immense power offered by casters, furious that their heroic archetypes are being dragged through the dirt.
But it's not the optimizers' fault. It's a game mechanic. Whether it's a flaw or not is open to debate, but the flat fact of the system gimps the "mighty hero" and hands the game to casters on a silver platter. With a garnish of parsely.
Woof. You'll have to pardon me. There was a lot there that had more to do with other threads than this one. My apologies. My conclusion, however, is simple:
Perhaps it's warriors who need a buff, not casters who need a nerf.
Using Half-Minotaur at +1 level adjustment with the stat adjustments from a size increase isn't optimized, it's pretty much broken. A feral half-ogre barely matches the stats that that template gives you, and that is a total of +3 LA.
Truthfully, I think they were intending to say you also get the -1 AC and -1 attack when they mentioned the size increase. Even without it, it's still a bit overpowered (reach plus good stats and natural armor is a +2 pretty easily).
Sigh. The old "that's unbalanced because it's great at low levels" argument.
That template is, in fact, a BALANCED one. Not at level 1, granted, but as levels progress?
Let's face facts: no matter how tough that Hulk looks on paper, he's got a +13 Will save. All that means is that by 20th level some ridiculously powerful caster has got a very handy, beefy bodyguard.
LA templates without the buyoff rules are very rarely overpowered except at lower levels of play. Heck, even then the loss of a Hit Die usually cripples the character and makes him/her/it a glass cannon - one hit and they're down, maybe even dead.
So what does a template or LA do for you? It gives you a STATIC benefit that does not increase as your level increases (there are a few notable exceptions to this rule, what with the arguments for even class HD improving Feral and Phrenic abilities, but I think that in general all templated abilities run off racial HD . . . maybe that argument belongs in the Book of Heavily Debated Topics!). Class levels, on the other hand, provide a SCALING benefit - for every level you gain, you gain abilities appropriate to your level.
Granted, it's easy to lose sight of the immense profit possible with scaling, class-based benefits when you're building a melee character. Melee characters (and indeed, non-casters as a whole) don't really get scaling benefits - instead, they get +1 BaB per level and some mediocre (generally speaking) plusses. When all you get for going up a level is a +1 to hit, +4 to Strength starts looking REALLY sexy.
Casters, on the other hand, gain scaling benefits that become immensely useful rather quickly. Sure, there are "dead levels" in which PCs only gain one more slot of an existing spell level per day, but with wisely chosen spells that's one more encounter per day without breaking a sweat.
My point is simply this: let the man have his fun with the Half-Minotaur. For non-ToB melee types (and even FOR ToB melee types, for that matter!), that LA makes playing more fun, more flavorful, and doesn't really do that much for them. Better yet, they get to have the rewarding FEELING that they're rough and buff and tough and stuff, and can get their satisfying one-hit one-kill moments in while the casters do the hard work (catching flyers, incorporeal creatures, etc.). In fact, allowing templates that are "broken" like the Half-Minotaur can make a DM's job MUCH easier - when the PC gets terrified by a fear aura, dominated, charmed, area-of-effect-ed (think GREASE, Impeding Stones from Cityscape, or the Frostburn equivalent of Grease that puts down an ice slick), nuked by blasphemy, holy word, imprisoned, etc. etc., you can always just say:
"Hey dude - I gave you that template. What are you whining about?"
You have to understand that this comes from a very passionate place. You see, I LOVE non-casters. What's more, I HATE casters - I hate playing them, building them, fighting them - just plain straight HATE 'em. But the problem is that in this game non-casters DON'T GET NICE THINGS - and for some reason everybody seems to be okay with that. It's unclear to me whether it has something to do with most folks making ineffective and weak casters (focusing on direct damage spells and other non-Aoo, non-save or lose, non-battlefield control spells) or that the fantasy gaming community, as a whole, has accepted the idea that fighters swing swords and wizards ALTER THE FABRIC OF REALITY.
Can you see the imbalance there?
Anyhoo, this is the same argument I make for ToB. Most folks who don't like ToB quibble with two things: 1) a misguided perception of too much power and/or 2) the argument that "if you can do it all day, it's borked." Neither of these arguments hold up under close scrutiny, of course - the abilities of a 20th level Tome character don't measure up to those of a well-built 20th level caster, and "at-will abilities" sounds great until you realize that 99.9% of them are single-target, require an attack roll, and often allow a save. With the same standard action it takes a Tome of Battle character to fire off a 9th level maneuver and take a single enemy down, a caster can eliminate an entire squadron. Tome characters NEED to have at-will abilities; without them, they'd be STUCK.
So my bottom line as a DM has been the following: take an LA if you want to - go for it! Enjoy the hell out of your freaky-deeky melee monsters. You're not even CLOSE to being overpowered - hell, a 1st level color spray will take you out all the way to ECL 5, and by that time casters have 3rd level spells - you're just not in the same league. But if that's your playstyle and it makes you happy, go to town - it doesn't break, bend, or even mildly unbalance the game.
Systematically, little to nothing changes.
In terms of fun, it can make someone's day.
To me, that's just the definition of "role" playing. ;)
P.S. Just to finish the rant, I thought I'd add that I apply the same logic to supplements - the more the merrier. Every supplement out there adds IMMENSE amounts of power to casters . . . and generally very little for your average board-swinger. If you really want to control power, give access to feats from any book but spells from the SRD alone - and even then casters will STILL be way ahead. Really, though, it all comes down to this:
You only know what's broken if you know how to BUILD.
Personally, I help my players craft the most efficient, powerful, and effective characters they can - they NEED it! Without well-built and heroic characters, they don't enjoy themselves (no one likes to play a hero who spend a lot of time looking un-heroically ineffective) and the enemies of their CR TEAR THEM APART.
Incidentally, I do think that part of the problem is that most DMs don't know how to read a monster entry. I remember playing in a game in which the party walked out onto a narrow stone bridge over a deep chasm, only to have a hideous skeletal demon surge up out of the depths to harry us. The monster entry read "attacks with swoops and claws." The thing had ACID FOG, BLASPHEMY, and CLOUDKILL as spell-like abilities.
Clawing and swooping? For god's sakes, WHY?
Everything should, of course, be tailored to fit the group and the DM. Naturally if your DM isn't savvy about special abilities or spellcasting he may not be ready for a properly optimized team of adventurers. Still, it's worth noting that a DM who does know how to run his monsters and outlaws things like LAs and splatbooks with "too powerful for players" is being rather unfair - in effect, rigging the game. The DM shouldn't have to rig the game - it's already rigged, and rigged in his favor!
The goal isn't a contest between DM and players, but rather a collaborative story-telling experience in which everyone contributes. The goal is to create a story with real, believable tension (people actually risk death on a regular basis!), larger-than-life, powerful fantasy heroes (nobody plays d20 because they like the idea of running peasants with pitchforks - they play to enjoy the thrill of being a mighty-thewed warrior or a powerful mage!), and frightening, horrible threats.
To that end, I'd like to turn this into an appeal:
Gamers of the world, unite under the banner of DIVERSITY! Allow bizarre templates, races, and bloodlines - is this not FANTASY? Permit feats and classes from any and every source you have access to! Punish not the pitiful warrior, but do your best to uplift him from his miserable state by granting him use of that which he needs to achieve! Accept ye all character concepts, be they brilliant or misguided, but help your fellow gamer to craft a BETTER character whenever possible! Is this game not open-ended, and do we not CRAVE new supplements, feats, classes, and spells? If it be so, then let us play this game unto its fullest potential, and delight in the cornucopia of diverse and flavorful delicacies only d20 can offer! If this game be designed to sell extra books and we choose to play it, do we not by playing concede that we LOVE the bounty of various rules and expansions it offers? Fear not imbalance, but rather celebrate the beauty of the myriad ideas that fuel our collective conception of FANTASY! War ye not with your fellow gamers, lest ye forget that verily this game was granted unto us that we might HAVE FUN!
For ours is the power and the glory of the immortal imagination, Amen.
Seriously, though - I think the LA system is borked anyhoo, and that even the most "underpriced" of templates fails to equal the potential power of a class level. I think I saw a larger issue that irks me, here: people consistently claim that various things are "broken" when some of the worst and most unreasonably unbalanced classes in the game are in the PHB: CoDzilla, anyone?
My argument is not meant to be a negative rant, but rather a positive exhortation to all those who play d20 to recognize the wonderful flavor possible when you embrace diversity. Play with every splatbook, web enhacement, dragon or dungeon you can get your hands on! YES, there will always be broken builds in d20 - but limiting supplements won't get rid of that imbalance. ALLOWING MORE supplements and sources will create opportunities to be powerful, yet not limited in choice - to be able to create a truly CREATIVE character who can hold his own.
Broken is all up to the group. My argument is that if the group is fully informed and knows what it's doing, that it will see that things like the Half-Minotaur AREN'T broken, whereas things like DRUIDS are.
An example:
NineInchNall, the author of the Shadowcraft Mage Handbook, and I are old pals. We are paying in a PbP game on another forum, and the DM there allowed only PHB, Completes, and Races. I wanted to make a non-caster, and without ToB found myself crippled. Non-casters need a variety of good stats; casters need only one. Non-casters need a lot of supplements to make their meager class abilities work for them; casters need only the SRD. Non-casters need a large range of PrCs; casters don't need PrCs at all, but can do just fine with one or two if they feel like it.
I asked to play a Dragonfire Adept - it's my thing, you know.
The DM's reply?
"I'm worried it would be broken."
NineInchNall was meanwhile happily statting out a 10th level SHADOWCRAFT MAGE - a character who is constantly invisible, can cast spontaneously cast ridiculously heightened evocation and conjuration spells SILENTLY all day long, and is generally a huge pain in the butt.
But the DM was worried about ME. Because I wanted to play something that had "at-will" abilities.
My point, in essence, is that limiting supplements does NOT prevent broken-ness; limiting supplements simply screws many players out of fun, playable options for the kinds of characters they like to run. Templates are the same way - it may sound overpowered for a +1, but give me another caster level ANY DAY and I'll show you REAL power.
My plea is simple: acknowledge that no matter what you allow there will be broken-ness! Acknowledge that templates - unless they're a +0 LA - aren't broken - they're underpowered! Allowing templates isn't dangerous - it's just good DM-ing; your player gets to enjoy a weird and entertaining build and ends up sacrificing power - usually quite a bit, in the long-run.
Hmm. I agree - not balanced if the DM's using the LA rules. But then again, it's sort of like taking classes, isn't it?
I mean, some templates are going to be inherently BETTER than others - I don't think anybody is going to argue that the LA rules as written make sense or work to balance everything with a +1 with everything else that has a +1. For instance, Half-Giants are just plain worse than Goliaths - there's very little argument there (except if maybe you're DESPERATE for power points . . . and even then!).
So in the same way that some classes are inherently BETTER than others (Warblades and Crusaders are inherently BETTER than Barbarians and Fighters, Druids are inherently BETTER than Spirit Shamans, etc.), some templates are always going to be inherently BETTER than others. Hey, even WEAPONS aren't equal - why, if you wanted a one-handed weapon, would you EVER choose a club over a mace? Cause you want to be able to throw it 10 ft.? And isn't part of the game allowing the players the ability to figure out what is 1) effective and 2) helps them do what they want to?
Here's another way to put it: if they AREN'T using the Half-Minotaur, is one of the other templates mentioned going to be as effective for the +1 LA? If it isn't, is forcing him to use a worse template somehow going to make things MORE FAIR for everyone else, or is it just going to screw his character? We don't know what kind of characters are going to be in his party, but it's reasonable to assume that there isn't going to be another "big thug" character. After all, d20 is all about party play, and I don't think I've played with a single group that didn't discuss roles and avoiding overlap before statting out characters.
With that in mind, how does letting him take Half-Minotaur hurt anyone? He won't be over-powered, if you accept my arguments above (static benefit, still WAY less effective than scaling class abilities, still TOTALLY vulnerable to spells/spell-likes/supernatural, limited to melee - really, in the broad sense of the word, a d20 cripple - a one-trick pony; the one trick he knows he does well, but so many high-level situations will straight flatten him). In fact, the ONLY THING the template will do is give him access to some abilities and a class that he thinks are groovy.
That hardly seems as if it will have any effect on game balance, doesn't it?
This is exactly my point in my above rant: that just because something isn't balanced with the REST OF THE GAME doesn't mean that it's broken or that it shouldn't be allowed. Some templates, feats, classes, and abilities will ALWAYS be better than others - the whole point of this forum is to FIND them and SHARE them! None of these can be broken unless there exists a significant power differential not between the ability in question and some of the abilities in the game, but between the ability in question and the abilities of the other PCs and the enemies. Moreover, there's always the question of overlap - even if a PC possess massive power in one dimension, he is still reliant on his allies for all the dimensions that he can't handle - and which they will be MORE OPTIMIZED to deal with.
Some of you may be wondering at this point: but Brother JJ, I'm running a module! How on earth do I ensure that my wonderfully diverse, multiple-splatbook-enabled, stylish, efficient, and POWERFUL characters don't eat the unoptimized encounters for breakfast?
Fear not, my child. For the way is like water, and can change its shape to accommodate any eventuality.
Firstly, know ye that most modules are well-optimized, and are designed to challenge spellcasters - verily, they who require fewer supplements to achieve greatness.
Second, know ye that no matter the lameness of the creature that a module presents, you, o optimizer, can cure its lameness, even so that it may RUN again, not merely walk. Read on, and all will become clear.
EVERYTHING hinges on tactics.
Exemplis gratis:
I was playing a level 1 Dragonfire Adept - a Whispergnome with Entangling Exhalation, Power Surge, and Shape Breath (see the DFA Handbook for more on the exact tactic, but basically this nabs a 30 ft. cone of entangling breath weapon ever 3rd round - breathe, wait, wait, breathe - etc.). Flaws account for the extra feats, by the by.
I met two stone golems. I fought them (something the module did not think would/could happen). I killed them both.
The EXP calculator on the d20srd told me I should get 0 experience - because TWO CR 11 critters should be "impossible" for a single level 1 character to defeat.
But not with miracle-working power of TACTICS!
See, those CR 11 critters had no ranged attacks, no energy resistance, and a speed of 20 ft. per round. Whilst entangles, they could move 20 ft. with a double move . . . leaving no ability to attack. Alls I had to do was play around with diagonal movement and just stick n' move, stick n' move.
I went up to level 7 after my first encounter. It made me happy in the pants. Of course, my little Whispergnome is probably the poorest 7th level character in the universe.
But I digress.
The CR system is completely illogical and arbitrary, and really presents only the crudest and most broad idea of how challenging an encounter might be. As a DM, I simply go into every adventure comfy and secure in the knowledge that my optimization skeelz guarantee that I can kick any given encounter to make it a challenge for my players.
Exemplis gratis:
My 6th level dungeon-crawling party, a bang-up mercenary menace in closed quarters, ran into a red dragon. Simply by adding Flyby Breath (Dragonlance) and Maximize Breath, I nearly nuked the lot of them into crispy chicken parts. The first pass by that bad boy left them all quaking (and sent a couple running like girls), and that fight has gone down as one of their truly "epic encounter" moments - and all it took from me, the DM, was the re-appropriation of two measly feats.
Feats, I find, are the easiest, quickest, and most straightforward way to ramp up an encounter. Usually I know something needs to change when the encounter is with a melee thug-monster - without special abilities, the CR of most critters is BADLY overrated. In lieu of special abilities, fiddle with feats to make the encounter scary!
Exemplis gratis:
My guys are going to be running into a couple of Huge fire elementals next game. Oooooh - big things are scary, I hear you say. But wait - all they do is beat things with flaming fists - NOT something worth much, my friend, against a tactically savvy party. A few spells and it's all over.
So what to do?
Simple! Swap out some lousy feats like "spring attack" (bleah!) for Martial Maneuver + Martial Stance! That grabs you the constricting stance, which sets you up for Crush - a feat from Savage Species. It lets you FALL on enemies to PIN them. MULTIPLE ENEMIES. Who then take flaming, constricting grapple damage of DOOM!
I'm not arguing everyone should buy or pirate the books; just that if they DO have them, they should USE them. I'm also careful to suggest that gamers SHARE knowledge - that everyone should not have to optimize "solo," but rather compile knowledge and information so that EVERYONE GETS THE CHANCE TO PLAY THE CHARACTER HE OR SHE WOULD ENJOY MOST. Moreover, you will note that I very SPECIFICALLY advocate playing "at the level of the group" and that one should always endeavor to help your fellow players (AND DM!) level it UP if necessary. Of COURSE the DM can "send everyone home with his tail between his legs." Part of my point is that BECAUSE the game is rigged and the DM is in complete control, it is patently RIDICULOUS to assume that giving the players access to more supplements will somehow "break" his ability to challenge the party. In fact, it's flat COUNTER-LOGICAL.
It all boils down to these two statements:
EVERYONE SHOULD BE ABLE TO PLAY THE CHARACTER HE OR SHE WOULD ENJOY MOST
and
VARIETY HELPS PEOPLE DO THAT WITHOUT UNDULY IMBALANCING THE GAME
Character classes are not equal. It's flat FACT that Clerics and Druids are BETTER than the other base classes. The same is true of feats, equipment, spells - NONE are equal. NONE. Therefore, the idea that preventing use of sources is somehow preventing "imbalance" is completely farcical. You can easily make an incredibly strong character using only the PHB. Unfortunately, that player will be limited to choosing Cleric or Druid. That limits the flavor of the game; saying "if you want to be truly heroic, you can only play one of these two archetypes" is a ridiculous and offensive attitude.
You'll argue that what you're really saying is that "every character archetype should be playable and viable regardless." I agree whole-heartedly. The problem comes in execution - you seem to think that somehow, magically, the DM should be able to micro-manage every encounter so that even the suck-tacular classes and builds find a way to be useful (despite inherent system imbalance and badly designed and weak abilities). I think that's TOO MUCH for a DM to manage!
Instead of pretending that "we'll all have more fun if the DM gimps the heroes and everybody sucks" or that "I'm a ninja even though I can't do anything that ninjas can," I'm advocating allowing enough supplements that people can actually PLAY the heroes they WANT to. Sure, not everybody will have the knowledge or the supplements, but that's why you SHARE. After all, as I point OUT in the Gospels, the WHOLE POINT OF GAMING IS FUN! It is, to quote myself, "a collective storytelling experience" - NOT a conflict between players and DMs.
The whole "imbalance" argument is somehow predicated on the idea that, if we give those players some supplements, they'll get out of hand - we'll lose control, and they'll end up RULING THE WORLD!
No they won't. They have a vested interest in play being challenging and fun, too! If you allow more versatility and resources, then all you do is allow for more flexible, interesting, and varied character builds. Plus, you allow your players to enjoy iconic heroes who actually live up to their archetypes, which is better than giving them the disappointing, frustrating, and ultimately NOT-FUN experience of TRYING to play a character they'll enjoy and finding out the hard way that it SUCKS. I find it highly unlikely that anyone worth playing with would actually bring something like Pun-Pun to the table - that would be completely asinine and pointless, and would ruin the game. If you're in a group with someone who actively does things that ruin the game and can't be reasoned with, maybe you better kick him out.
Let me summarize:
I am advocating that groups work together to build strong players, strong threats, and strong stories.
I am advocating for diversity allowing MORE fun, not somehow destroying it.
I am NOT advocating everyone buy more supplements.
I am NOT advocating that one player should monopolize the game action by playing a vastly more powerful character.
Outlawing may be easier, it's true. But if you're going to outlaw, you might as well not play. The SRD is broken, so why on earth should you even bother? This is the equivalent of saying "since there are some emergent problems with new technology, we should all just wear loincloths, live in the forest, and poke people with sticks."
There are very few TRULY "broken" things - in ANY book.
Most of what people call "broken" is just powerful.
And most of what is thought of as "powerful" ISN'T really - it's just MUCH better than what you can do with the SRD.
And those things that are MUCH better than the SRD are usually for non-casters.
And non-casters are CRIPPLED to begin with.
ERGO:
When people say "OMG - BORKED" and outlaw something, they are usually doing the equivalent of preventing a crippled guy from buying a crutch, not giving a bazooka to a ninja.