Which 3.0 books are considered "broken" or "op"? [Archive]

Zaq

2018-01-02, 09:43 AM

Ghostwalk is mostly not especially OP (the non-ghost feats, in particular, stand out as being comically underpowered), but I still dislike the book because it really does not play well with others. It’s aggressively self-contained and doesn’t function especially well when you attempt to mix it into a larger campaign universe.

The 3.0 monster books without major direct updates (MM2 and Fiend Folio) have some insanely unbalanced monsters, many of which have some of the most infamously bad CR ratings in the system. It takes a very aware and involved GM to not have monsters from those books cause problems. Outside of Polymorph and Shapechange (and equivalents), relatively few elements in those books can end up in player hands, but still, it’s something to watch for.

The 3.0 Psionics Handbook was fully replaced by the 3.5 Expanded Psionics Handbook for a good reason.

Other than that, I don’t think there are too many cases where it’s worth banning a whole 3.0 book for balance reasons. Lots of stuff needs consideration on a case-by-case basis for balance considerations in both directions, but I wouldn’t go so far as to condemn too many entire books out of hand for balance alone.

Eldariel

2018-01-02, 09:54 AM

If they are played separately, they are okay. It's when you start mixing them together that you have problems.

Each splat was written with it self in mind, and nothing else, and absolutely no thought went in to how they would combine with what was already out there. SO, if you allow a splat, then just allow that ONE splat. That way, you will only have one small steaming pile to balance for, rather than a Dire Elephant's gigantic steaming load.

This is bullcrap. Plenty of splats (like the mentioned Serpent Kingdoms and Sacage Species) are filled to the brim with broken stuff that only requires the Core 3 (more precisely, PHB) to break the game almost as bad as, or even worse than, the worst Core stuff.

martixy

2018-01-02, 11:00 AM

I swear this thread feels like thread necromancy.

3.0 stuff is some of the worst offenders in broken loops and TO cheese. Imagine how much of that would vanish if it were updated to 3.5 or just not there to begin with. Look at the list the others posted and think. Pun-pun, triple 9ths, hive builds, infinite crit fishing, cancer mage, etc, etc.

Psyren

2018-01-02, 11:19 AM

Savage Species gets my vote and ShurikVch did a decent job of explaining why. BoVD has some questionable material like Hiveminds and AftS, but nothing that holds a candle to it in the end.

Cosi

2018-01-02, 11:39 AM

martixy

2018-01-02, 11:51 AM

I think Savage Species' problem is best summarized as having the stuff it is nominally about be horribly underpowered (all the "monsters as PCs" stuff is a garbage fire) and having the other material be horrifyingly broken (all the noted stuff, I also like to point out Multitasking -- it gives a Druid that turns into a Octopus a pile of extra actions).

You know... I never did quite get how this is supposed to work, even though I've used it in an actual game. I interpreted it as any normal standard action, except you can also use any free hands to attack as well.

I'm looking for the common sense perspective here, not the TO interpretation.

Zanos

2018-01-02, 11:54 AM

SirNibbles

2018-01-02, 02:16 PM

...work with your players to make sure they're building characters to roughly the same level.

This is incredibly important. You don't have to broadly ban or allow books when you work with your players.

Grod_The_Giant

2018-01-02, 04:22 PM

This is incredibly important. You don't have to broadly ban or allow books when you work with your players.
Although, in fairness and slightly contradiction to my earlier point, 3e did have some spectacularly broken stuff in it. I had a long thread a few months ago polling people about the worst-balanced books in the game (either too strong or too weak), and probably the top four answers were "Savage Species," "Serpent Kingdoms," "Book of Vile Darkness," and "Weapons of Legacy"-- three-fourths 3.0 books.

Scots Dragon

2018-01-02, 05:44 PM

Although, in fairness and slightly contradiction to my earlier point, 3e did have some spectacularly broken stuff in it. I had a long thread a few months ago polling people about the worst-balanced books in the game (either too strong or too weak), and probably the top four answers were "Savage Species," "Serpent Kingdoms," "Book of Vile Darkness," and "Weapons of Legacy"-- three-fourths 3.0 books.

As mentioned earlier, Serpent Kingdoms is actually pretty solidly on the 3.5e side of the edition divide so it's an even split.

Arbane

2018-01-02, 05:55 PM

Am I really the first person to say "Player's Handbook"? I am disappointed.

It's got Wizards and Monks in it, so it's poorly designed in BOTH directions.

Telonius

2018-01-02, 06:01 PM

I liked Savage Species, not for its horrible execution, but for the ideas behind it and the direction it pushed monster-making. As several others have noted, it was a nearly-complete flop at what it's supposed to be about. But back in 3.0, monsters were a lot less standardized and more complicated to advance. Many of the Types were idiosyncratic (Constructs particularly). By taking the idea of "monster as class" it encouraged people to think of them more in terms of hit dice and advancement - which eventually led to a more streamlined system of improving (and even homebrewing) monsters in 3.5. It did give a framework (however awful) for letting players be their favorite monster, or for a DM to scale back the power of a higher-level monster if the party needs to meet one at lower level.

Eldariel

2018-01-02, 06:06 PM

Am I really the first person to say "Player's Handbook"? I am disappointed.

It's got Wizards and Monks in it, so it's poorly designed in BOTH directions.

3.0 PHB is particularly egregious, containing Polymorph Self, Haste, Polymorph Other (!!), hours/level stat buff spells at 1d4+1, etc. Luckily it's thoroughly supplanted in any game using 3.5 so none of that nonsense has a chance to make it in.

vasilidor

2018-01-02, 10:20 PM

Nobody ever really uses Savage Species other than to dumpster dive for broken stuff because the core purpose of the book, to make Monster Races more playable, was handled terribly. They're almost all mechanically garbage.

this was actually intentional on the part of the designers in order to get people to not play the monsters, and give people what they thought was a good book at the same time, same with the draconomicon and every other play monster books, as far a those officially released are concerned. they were designed from the ground up to discourage players.

Mutazoia

2018-01-03, 03:15 AM

This is bullcrap. Plenty of splats (like the mentioned Serpent Kingdoms and Sacage Species) are filled to the brim with broken stuff that only requires the Core 3 (more precisely, PHB) to break the game almost as bad as, or even worse than, the worst Core stuff.

... Yes, I believe I said that.

I also said that if you only allow a single splat, then you only have to worry about balancing for that. As opposed to allowing multiple, or even all, splats, which will compound the problem exponentially....

Am I really the first person to say "Player's Handbook"? I am disappointed.

It's got Wizards and Monks in it, so it's poorly designed in BOTH directions.

There are multiple threads that deal with THAT whole issue...we hardly need to drag that grief into this one.

Razade

2018-01-03, 03:19 AM

EldritchWeaver

2018-01-03, 10:17 AM

this was actually intentional on the part of the designers in order to get people to not play the monsters, and give people what they thought was a good book at the same time, same with the draconomicon and every other play monster books, as far a those officially released are concerned. they were designed from the ground up to discourage players.

Which is a really underhanded move from these designers. It would have been more honest to say "we don't want to you to play monsters", but instead players got to pay for their own poison. And in the end, it has never stopped people from wishing to play monsters.

sorcererlover

2018-01-03, 03:53 PM

The only really broken elements are found in the Book of Vile Darkness, but if the DM's letting players use that stuff the group has somewhat more severe problems than balance going on.

I was thinking of grabbing some stuff from BoVD, but I guess it is that bad.

I think Savage Species's biggest offender is the Anthro bat, it's something like +8 wis with no LA.

Zanos

2018-01-03, 04:43 PM

Which is a really underhanded move from these designers. It would have been more honest to say "we don't want to you to play monsters", but instead players got to pay for their own poison. And in the end, it has never stopped people from wishing to play monsters.
Does anything corroborate that? I was always under the impression the designers just seriously overvalued most monster abilities, like natural weapons, DR, fast healing, at-will stuff, SLAs, etc.

Cosi

2018-01-03, 08:03 PM

You know... I never did quite get how this is supposed to work, even though I've used it in an actual game. I interpreted it as any normal standard action, except you can also use any free hands to attack as well.

I'm looking for the common sense perspective here, not the TO interpretation.

Partial actions in 3.0 are equivalent (largely and maybe entirely, I haven't checked in detail) to Standard actions in 3.5, so the feat should probably give you extra standard actions as you interpret. There's some room for argument, but those arguments are stupid. Tying yourself in knots to make something broken not broken only makes the rest of the game stupid and people who play with you pissed off. See: every debate about how wish loops totally don't work because the DM could make genies jerks.

This is incredibly important. You don't have to broadly ban or allow books when you work with your players.

Yes. In general, I think "here is the ban list" sends the wrong message. It sets the DM up as trying to make the game balanced, which implicitly sets the players up as trying to make the game not balanced. That generally won't end well. Instead, the group as a whole needs to come to a consensus about power level.

3.0 PHB is particularly egregious, containing Polymorph Self, Haste, Polymorph Other (!!), hours/level stat buff spells at 1d4+1, etc. Luckily it's thoroughly supplanted in any game using 3.5 so none of that nonsense has a chance to make it in.

3.0 haste was not as broken as is commonly believed. Particularly because it was widely available to non-casters. In 3.0, everyone got an extra action and that was the way it was. The change to 3.5 took away haste, which meant no more extra actions for mundanes, but left plenty of options for extra actions for casters.

Does anything corroborate that? I was always under the impression the designers just seriously overvalued most monster abilities, like natural weapons, DR, fast healing, at-will stuff, SLAs, etc.

I don't have a source, but that was also my understanding of what happened.

Mutazoia

2018-01-03, 11:53 PM

Yes. In general, I think "here is the ban list" sends the wrong message. It sets the DM up as trying to make the game balanced, which implicitly sets the players up as trying to make the game not balanced.

What are you smoking, and where can I get some? Maybe that's how YOU game, but for the majority of people, a DM deciding what splats he does and/or does not want to use in his game, is normal, and does not automatically equate to players trying to unbalance or break the game, for "reasons".

A DM may decide he wants to ban a splat because he is not familiar with the material enough to feel comfortable allowing it in his game, or because it's setting specific (a splat for the Forgotten Realms for instance) and the material has no place outside of that setting...especially in a custom built one. Imagine allowing a bunch of Eberron material into a Dragonlance game, or vise versa....

Ravens_cry

2018-01-04, 12:43 AM

The PHB is pretty OP. You got stuff like stacking critical threat mods, a Haste that lets you cast two spells a turn without Quicken Spell, a Quicken Spell that's a free action, a Harm that leaves the target at a cherry tap away from dropping. I'm sure there's more, but that's what comes to mind off hand, besides of course stuff already OP and 'broken' in either 3.0 or 3.5.

gkathellar

2018-01-04, 05:31 AM

Serpent Kingdoms is fine if you use it as a resource for monsters and obstacles for the heroes rather than as a resource for Pun-Pun.

Venomfire.

Cosi

2018-01-04, 10:13 AM

What are you smoking, and where can I get some? Maybe that's how YOU game, but for the majority of people, a DM deciding what splats he does and/or does not want to use in his game, is normal, and does not automatically equate to players trying to unbalance or break the game, for "reasons".

I'm pretty sure the thread title is "Which 3.0 books are considered 'broken' or 'op'?", not "Which 3.0 books aren't appropriate in the Forgotten Realms?". But yes, the way the DM approaches the game absolutely influences the players, and the idea that the DM should be the final authority on what is allowed is deeply toxic. It is not his game in which you have the privilege of playing, it is the group's game.

Fizban

2018-01-04, 10:20 AM

I think I've heard that the original version of Incantatrix was even more broken? And Spelldancer might also be 3.0.

The general statement of 3.0 books having amazingly broken stuff in both directions doesn't really stop applying in 3.5, there's just a lot more books in 3.5 so there's more room to rank some of them as middle ground. But even "middle ground" just means that the overpowered stuff is only less overpowered than other books, or the underpowered stuff doesn't catch attention because nobody wanted it anyway.

Just because 3.5 update doesn't mean fixed- I've got a whole list of stuff from Spell Compendium that wasn't broken until they "fixed" it. The idea that there's any sort of overarching 3.5 anything is pretty laughable, as anyone can see the drift between early and later books. Tracking the history of Lion's Charge for example, it started as a 2nd level minute factor buff, then went to a higher level swift action one round buff, then the ranger level dropped while the druid level stayed the same. Because the "game" changed over time, realizing that the original was crazy OP, then that the second version was better but most rangers never got to use it. The monster books are also great, say the Nycaloth: original in 3.0 Manual of Planes, 3.5 update booklet updates it, 3.5 MM3 massively jacks up the power level across the board without changing the CR. Then by MM5 we have creatures that damage themselves in order to activate weaksauce abilities.

Scots Dragon

2018-01-04, 10:47 AM

the idea that the DM should be the final authority on what is allowed is deeply toxic.

Have you ever actually read the Dungeon Master's Guide to any edition of Dungeons & Dragons? At all?

Venomfire.

You mean something that literally does not apply at all to the vast majority of playable characters but which can make a monster far more threatening to fight?

Yeah, I don't see how that contradicts anything I said.

Mutazoia

2018-01-04, 11:14 AM

I'm pretty sure the thread title is "Which 3.0 books are considered 'broken' or 'op'?", not "Which 3.0 books aren't appropriate in the Forgotten Realms?". But yes, the way the DM approaches the game absolutely influences the players, and the idea that the DM should be the final authority on what is allowed is deeply toxic. It is not his game in which you have the privilege of playing, it is the group's game.

Yes. Very good. You know the topic of the thread.

You (basically) state that you feel that the DM not allowing one or more splats means that the players are all consciously trying to break the game, and therefor the DM should never disallow any splats.

I give you examples of why a DM may choose to disallow one or more splats, that have nothing to do with "players are consciously trying to break the game".

You counter with "But the Dungeon Master having any authority, is toxic." I can only assume that all of your games are run with complete anarchy, kind of like a child's game of "cops and robbers".

"I hit the monster with my sword!"
"Nuh uh...you missed!"
"No I didn't! It's a magic sword that can't miss!"
"Well the monster has a force field!"

Have you ever actually read any of the rules? Particularly the DMG?

Cosi

2018-01-04, 12:19 PM

I think I've heard that the original version of Incantatrix was even more broken? And Spelldancer might also be 3.0.

If the original Incantatrix is better than the new one, I don't know how. I guess it's arguably slightly better if you're not doing Persistent Spell abuse or Mailman stuff, but at that point it isn't really broken, so IDK. Spelldancer is 3.0, though it's less powerful in 3.5 because you can no longer stack metamagic feats or apply Empower Spell to the bull's strength, so you can't Spelldance yourself to infinite stats. It still lets you get free Persistent, so probably still OP, but much less insane than it once was.

Have you ever actually read the Dungeon Master's Guide to any edition of Dungeons & Dragons? At all?

Did I ever say it wasn't there? No, I said it was bad for the game, and I stand by that. The attitude that the DM is in charge and you get to accept what he wants or leave is bad for the game.

You mean something that literally does not apply at all to the vast majority of playable characters but which can make a monster far more threatening to fight?

That's kind of dumb. Most broken stuff doesn't apply to the vast majority of playable characters. Almost no one can take Greenbound Summoning, but it's still crazy. Similarly, Persistent Spell is pretty bad unless you have both a free metamagic outlet and some personal buffs in the rounds/level or minutes/level range. venomfire applies a pile of extra damage to each attack if you have poison, and it's on a class with free shapeshifting. That said, I don't really think "do a lot of damage to people you can go up and punch" is really broken, so I kind of agree with you, but you're making a bad argument.

Yes. Very good. You know the topic of the thread.

Which, you'll note, puts me ahead of you.

You (basically) state that you feel that the DM not allowing one or more splats means that the players are all consciously trying to break the game, and therefor the DM should never disallow any splats.

The DM setting up a banned list to maintain a power level is foreclosing the dramatically superior strategy of "talk with the rest of your group" and implicitly okay-ing any build that happens not to use any banned elements, which encourages optimization beyond what you'd get if you just had a conversation with people about expected power levels. If you tell people "everything but these five things" they aren't going to double check with you when it turns out that combing two things that weren't on the list is overpowered. If you instead decide on a power level of "about what you'd get by taking Mage of the Arcane Order and BFC spells as a Wizard", people are much more likely to stay on target.

You counter with "But the Dungeon Master having any authority, is toxic."

You know, there's a quote function on these boards. Though the mods do dislike it if you use it for anything other than the actual words people really said, which explains why you're not using it here. Here's the specific quote of what I was criticizing (if you don't believe me, you can check, because it was in this thread and on this page):

the idea that the DM should be the final authority on what is allowed

I didn't say "the DM should have no authority" I said "the DM shouldn't be the final authority". And I stand by that. The group should be the final authority, because it is a group game. It's cooperative storytelling, not "sitting around and hearing what the DM thinks is cool".

I can only assume that all of your games are run with complete anarchy, kind of like a child's game of "cops and robbers".

I don't understand how you can think that. Do you not know what rules do? Do you think the only way for people to follow rules is by allowing the DM to decide what sourcebooks are in the game? If you, I don't know, voted on what the game would be like, do you think that would somehow magically result in not being able to use attack bonus vs AC to decide which attacks hit and which miss?

There's no GM in chess. And yet, people somehow manage to follow the rules of chess.

Have you ever actually read any of the rules? Particularly the DMG?

Have you? The DMG says the DM can change the rules unilaterally. I agree that it's there, but I think it is dumb and bad. Everywhere else makes no mention of this authority, and functions fine if you don't assume it. glitterdust says:

A cloud of golden particles covers everyone and everything in the area, causing creatures to become blinded and visibly outlining invisible things for the duration of the spell. All within the area are covered by the dust, which cannot be removed and continues to sparkle until it fades.

Any creature covered by the dust takes a -40 penalty on Hide checks.
Material Component

Ground mica.

not:

A cloud of golden particles covers everyone and everything in the area, causing creatures to become blinded and visibly outlining invisible things for the duration of the spell. All within the area are covered by the dust, which cannot be removed and continues to sparkle until it fades.

Any creature covered by the dust takes a -40 penalty on Hide checks.
Material Component

Ground mica.

And also the DM can unilaterally alter how the game works.

There are already four players sitting at the table following the rules in the book without the power to modify them unilaterally. The game is not going to collapse if there are instead five.

Grod_The_Giant

2018-01-04, 12:20 PM

You counter with "But the Dungeon Master having any authority, is toxic." I can only assume that all of your games are run with complete anarchy, kind of like a child's game of "cops and robbers".
That's an exaggeration-- they're not saying "the DM having any authority is toxic," they're saying "the DM being the only authority is toxic." (Cosi, correct me if I'm misinterpreting). And I agree-- saying "this is my game, my will is law, take it or get out" is not a productive start to a game where the goal is for everyone to have fun. Yes, the DM is the final arbiter of how things happen in the world; doing otherwise requires a whole different set of assumptions and mechanics that aren't really compatible with D&D as we know it. It's the metagame stuff where "first among equals" becomes more important. Things like "what material is allowed" and "what houserules are we using" are questions where involving the group will lead to everyone being more satisfied in the end.

As for ban lists encouraging players to break the game... I don't think it's quite correct, but if you say "these things are off limits for power reasons," it sort of implies "well, that means everything else is fine," even if it results in a final build that's also too strong. It implies a binary "okay/not okay" state that's less likely to result in a fair, balanced party than a more collaborative process.

Quertus

2018-01-04, 05:30 PM

Am I really the first person to say "Player's Handbook"? I am disappointed.

It's got Wizards and Monks in it, so it's poorly designed in BOTH directions.

Touché.

This is incredibly important. You don't have to broadly ban or allow books when you work with your players.

Oh so very much this.

I am arguably the biggest **** in the Playground (outside the banned lists), yet my group's first house rule was, simply, "don't be a ****". We really didn't need many house rules after that.

3.0 PHB is particularly egregious, containing Polymorph Self, Haste, Polymorph Other (!!), hours/level stat buff spells at 1d4+1, etc. Luckily it's thoroughly supplanted in any game using 3.5 so none of that nonsense has a chance to make it in.

Well, see, hours per level buffs (alongside cheaper Persist metamagic) is, IMO, one of the ways in which 3.0 is clearly superior. The casters can buff the fighters long before the fight, and then get to actually contribute during the battle. It's a win/win situation in my book.

the way the DM approaches the game absolutely influences the players, and the idea that the DM should be the final authority on what is allowed is deeply toxic. It is not his game in which you have the privilege of playing, it is the group's game.

Have you ever actually read the Dungeon Master's Guide to any edition of Dungeons & Dragons? At all?

That's an exaggeration-- they're not saying "the DM having any authority is toxic," they're saying "the DM being the only authority is toxic." (Cosi, correct me if I'm misinterpreting). And I agree-- saying "this is my game, my will is law, take it or get out" is not a productive start to a game where the goal is for everyone to have fun. Yes, the DM is the final arbiter of how things happen in the world; doing otherwise requires a whole different set of assumptions and mechanics that aren't really compatible with D&D as we know it. It's the metagame stuff where "first among equals" becomes more important. Things like "what material is allowed" and "what houserules are we using" are questions where involving the group will lead to everyone being more satisfied in the end.

As for ban lists encouraging players to break the game... I don't think it's quite correct, but if you say "these things are off limits for power reasons," it sort of implies "well, that means everything else is fine," even if it results in a final build that's also too strong. It implies a binary "okay/not okay" state that's less likely to result in a fair, balanced party than a more collaborative process.

While I won't go so far as to call this authoritarian mentality inherently toxic, I will say that much of the advice to DMs in D&D books is quite toxic, and that there is a strong enough correlation between highly authoritarian games and toxic games that, much like close family members when a girl goes missing or gets pregnant, it's worth investigating should the scenario come up.

However, not all groups have the rapport or the player skills necessary to have a meaningful conversation about party balance, and are thus forced to take on inferior methods of attempting to emulate actual balance. For such people, this is actually a meaningful question.

Regrettably, there are, IMO, very few individual options - let alone entire books - which are inherently game breaking. 3e is usually broken through combining options - something which most Playgrounders would argue is inherently necessary for the Fighter to keep up.

I will say that 3.0 monsters, with their much higher DR, often get books thrown by players who are only familiar with their wussy 3.5 cousins. :smallwink:

Eldariel

2018-01-04, 05:49 PM

Well, see, hours per level buffs (alongside cheaper Persist metamagic) is, IMO, one of the ways in which 3.0 is clearly superior. The casters can buff the fighters long before the fight, and then get to actually contribute during the battle. It's a win/win situation in my book.

IMHO it's pretty silly to expect someone to pony up those slots for someone else when everyone can just play a class with said buffs themselves and have absolutely no trouble keeping them up all day. All it accomplishes is it exacerbates caster stat inflation. Of course, everyone is Polymorph Othered into e.g. Firbolg or some other high stat form because the boons are just too good, which makes level up stat buffs and such to physicals (or physicals in general) completely irrelevant for everyone so there's even less reason to play classes that inherently want to use their physicals. 3.5 caster supremacy is nothing compared to 3.0 caster supremacy; there's just absolutely no reason to bring a non-caster to a 3.0 table (not that there's much in 3.5 either but the difference is even more glaring in 3.0) and all of the martials' power comes from the buff spells cast on them by somebody else. Their class features amount to basically nothing. There's even no two-handed power attack.

A Cleric with the physical buffs, Righteous Might and Spikes (which also lasts for hours/level because why not) literally wears any martial class like a scarf, to a much greater extent than in 3.5. And any martial class needs a personal buffer willing to give up a great portion of their slots (seriously, you need most of your level 2-4 slots for stat buffing higher up with Empowers & al.; it's very expensive slot-wise to buff even two characters up). There's always the question of "why buff this guy when I could just buff myself with the same slot and do much more for the team" or more poignantly, "why is this guy even tagging along when he's literally just a buff carrier". Anyone can carry buffs but casting them takes resource investment.

Quertus

2018-01-04, 07:46 PM

IMHO it's pretty silly to expect someone to pony up those slots for someone else when everyone can just play a class with said buffs themselves and have absolutely no trouble keeping them up all day. All it accomplishes is it exacerbates caster stat inflation. Of course, everyone is Polymorph Othered into e.g. Firbolg or some other high stat form because the boons are just too good, which makes level up stat buffs and such to physicals (or physicals in general) completely irrelevant for everyone so there's even less reason to play classes that inherently want to use their physicals. 3.5 caster supremacy is nothing compared to 3.0 caster supremacy; there's just absolutely no reason to bring a non-caster to a 3.0 table (not that there's much in 3.5 either but the difference is even more glaring in 3.0) and all of the martials' power comes from the buff spells cast on them by somebody else. Their class features amount to basically nothing. There's even no two-handed power attack.

A Cleric with the physical buffs, Righteous Might and Spikes (which also lasts for hours/level because why not) literally wears any martial class like a scarf, to a much greater extent than in 3.5. And any martial class needs a personal buffer willing to give up a great portion of their slots (seriously, you need most of your level 2-4 slots for stat buffing higher up with Empowers & al.; it's very expensive slot-wise to buff even two characters up). There's always the question of "why buff this guy when I could just buff myself with the same slot and do much more for the team" or more poignantly, "why is this guy even tagging along when he's literally just a buff carrier". Anyone can carry buffs but casting them takes resource investment.

These are very good questions.

It's easy to see why one should buff the rogue: +Xd6 SA damage per attack is just damage output that the Cleric can't compete with. The optimal buff carrier is and always has been the Rogue. The Fighter, I must admit, is generally a bit more lackluster. Now, the Wizard would much rather have the Fighter's d10/d12 HD & armor up front, but the Cleric has no such compunctions. So why bother buffing the Fighter? Well, in 3.0, it's easy to make the Fighter a combat monster. The two trivial paths I often mention are the Improved Crit Keen Vorpal Great Cleave build, and the Rhino Hide Armor Spirited Charge Lancer, both available in core! Sadly, 3.5 represents a huge debuff to Fighters, negating both such trivial builds, while simultaneously nerfing the ability of other classes to buff the Fighter.

Resource investment is one thing, but when the caster has to choose whether to invest actions on buffing the muggles, well, it tips the scales even further towards a more selfish course of action, such as BFC or SoD/SoS, where the caster "single handedly wins the fight" being optimal. Which do you consider better?

Mutazoia

2018-01-04, 07:50 PM

Which, you'll note, puts me ahead of you.

Your the one that went off on a tangent.

The DM setting up a banned list to maintain a power level is foreclosing the dramatically superior strategy of "talk with the rest of your group" and implicitly okay-ing any build that happens not to use any banned elements, which encourages optimization beyond what you'd get if you just had a conversation with people about expected power levels. If you tell people "everything but these five things" they aren't going to double check with you when it turns out that combing two things that weren't on the list is overpowered. If you instead decide on a power level of "about what you'd get by taking Mage of the Arcane Order and BFC spells as a Wizard", people are much more likely to stay on target.

Provided that A) Everybody was familiar with every splat available and how they all combined and B) your DM was just running a giant sandbox where the players just did anything they wanted, and the "DM" was just there as a random monster/treasure generator.

You know, there's a quote function on these boards. Though the mods do dislike it if you use it for anything other than the actual words people really said, which explains why you're not using it here. Here's the specific quote of what I was criticizing (if you don't believe me, you can check, because it was in this thread and on this page):

Paraphrasing is a fairly common thing. You should look in to it.

I didn't say "the DM should have no authority" I said "the DM shouldn't be the final authority". And I stand by that. The group should be the final authority, because it is a group game. It's cooperative storytelling, not "sitting around and hearing what the DM thinks is cool".

Yet the DM is the one setting the stage, the plot of the story, and, according to every DMG ever written, is the final authority in the game. Otherwise a simple rules debate would stop the game for hours while two or more players argued over RAW vs RAI, for example.

I don't understand how you can think that. Do you not know what rules do? Do you think the only way for people to follow rules is by allowing the DM to decide what sourcebooks are in the game? If you, I don't know, voted on what the game would be like, do you think that would somehow magically result in not being able to use attack bonus vs AC to decide which attacks hit and which miss?

There's no GM in chess. And yet, people somehow manage to follow the rules of chess.

There is always a session zero of some sort, where the players generally decide what game they want to play, and the the GM creates that game. At that point, it is perfectly valid for the GM to decide what material to use when crafting said game, and to disallow other material. Are you saying the players should then over ride the setting by majority vote, and bring their Warhammer 40K space marine into the Forgotten Realms? (Hyperbole, since I'm sure you'll miss it).

And Chess, isn't an RPG. Chess is a board game, with no random elements in it at all. You just referenced a walnut in a discussion about vegetables.

Have you? The DMG says the DM can change the rules unilaterally. I agree that it's there, but I think it is dumb and bad. Everywhere else makes no mention of this authority, and functions fine if you don't assume it. glitterdust says:

I'm sensing a theme here: Cosi doesn't like it when he isn't the authority figure

There are already four players sitting at the table following the rules in the book without the power to modify them unilaterally. The game is not going to collapse if there are instead five.

Ooooooooo kay. Let's harken back to your out of place chess reference. What if one player suddenly decided that knights could move like queens, and then the other player decided that the king had laser turrets that could shoot any space on the board, and then the first player decided that pawn had unlimited movement.....

Your point is valid to a degree. When deciding on a house rule, in the case of a grey area, yes, all the players should decide together. That's where the "gaming by committee" experiment should end.

Fizban

2018-01-04, 08:45 PM

Personally I think my ban list should do an excellent job of keeping people from trying to break the game: if you recognize and are outraged by anything on the list, it should be a pretty strong indicator that you need to rethink your plans. But I never advocate banning by book either- a properly intimidating list needs to be of discreet recognizable elements in order to get the point across.

Cosi

2018-01-04, 09:03 PM

That's an exaggeration-- they're not saying "the DM having any authority is toxic," they're saying "the DM being the only authority is toxic." (Cosi, correct me if I'm misinterpreting).

That's a pretty good summation.

Yes, the DM is the final arbiter of how things happen in the world

Well, sort of. Obviously, he's not the arbiter of what the PCs do. And there probably should be a politics/economics/warfare engine that produces notionally random/fair outcomes for actions the PCs are aware of but not involved in for the sake of verisimilitude and agency. But the DM does and should have the right to make decisions like "the king has three daughters" or "the bar is named the Scowling Werewolf", just as the players have the right to make decisions about their names or backstories.

Well, see, hours per level buffs (alongside cheaper Persist metamagic) is, IMO, one of the ways in which 3.0 is clearly superior. The casters can buff the fighters long before the fight, and then get to actually contribute during the battle. It's a win/win situation in my book.

I agree that makes buffing the Fighter less bad, but I'm not at all convinced it makes it worthwhile. At that point the Fighter is basically showing up with a partial character and asking the rest of the group to cover for the rest of him. That's not really a healthy paradigm.

Regrettably, there are, IMO, very few individual options - let alone entire books - which are inherently game breaking. 3e is usually broken through combining options - something which most Playgrounders would argue is inherently necessary for the Fighter to keep up.

I think that depends on what you mean by "broken" (and to a lesser extent "combining"). The abuses made possible by e.g. SLA wish are fairly straightforward and completely game shattering, while many of the character builds created by voltroning together half a dozen books are simply more powerful than PCs are expected to be without actually breaking the game apart (e.g. the Mailman).

3.5 caster supremacy is nothing compared to 3.0 caster supremacy

I'm not convinced this is the case. Casters got some serious buffs in 3.5, even looking at things simply in terms of volume of content. 3.5 broke both wish and shapechange, and while it made haste less powerful, I think (as I said earlier) it made that imbalance more pronounced.

Provided that A) Everybody was familiar with every splat available and how they all combined

Or that people who were familiar with things provided reasonable and accurate summations of their contents. It turns out when you assume players are mature adults who don't need a babysitter to make rules for them, they make decisions that are good for the game.

B) your DM was just running a giant sandbox where the players just did anything they wanted, and the "DM" was just there as a random monster/treasure generator.

The DM's job is to play everything in the world that is not a PC. I do not understand why you think he needs the power to decide what rules are being used, or to change those rules, to effectively fill those roles, and I do not see where you have made any argument to that effect.

Otherwise a simple rules debate would stop the game for hours while two or more players argued over RAW vs RAI, for example.

You should not be resolving rules debates during table time. That either leads to sloppy decisions for the sake of quickness, or (as you point out) arguments that bog down the game. The solution should be to table the issue until the end of the session, then resolve it between sessions with a discussion involving the whole group and aimed at producing the minimally disruptive solution.

At that point, it is perfectly valid for the GM to decide what material to use when crafting said game, and to disallow other material. Are you saying the players should then over ride the setting by majority vote, and bring their Warhammer 40K space marine into the Forgotten Realms?

No, the group should decide on a setting by majority vote, and then all the players should be constrained by it. It would be wrong for me to show up to your Forgotten Realms game with a Space Marine, but it would also be wrong for the DM to unilaterally decide that Space Marines were not acceptable PCs in my Warhammer 40k game because he though they were "OP". The rules are a contract that are meant to produce an experience that is the best possible compromise between the players at the table. Giving one player the right to unilaterally alter that contract can only make a better game if you believe that other people were negotiating in bad faith, and why would you game with someone who won't deal with you in good faith?

And Chess, isn't an RPG. Chess is a board game, with no random elements in it at all. You just referenced a walnut in a discussion about vegetables.

Magic: The Gathering, Arkham Horror, Risk, and Monopoly all function without a DM.

Arbane

2018-01-04, 11:06 PM

No, the group should decide on a setting by majority vote, and then all the players should be constrained by it. It would be wrong for me to show up to your Forgotten Realms game with a Space Marine, but it would also be wrong for the DM to unilaterally decide that Space Marines were not acceptable PCs in my Warhammer 40k game because he though they were "OP".

If the GM said ahead of time it was an Imperial Guard game, vetoing a Space Marine would be perfectly appropriate.

Magic: The Gathering, Arkham Horror, Risk, and Monopoly all function without a DM.

Says someone who's obviously never seen a rules dispute at a Magic tournament. :D

Mutazoia

2018-01-05, 01:02 AM

Or that people who were familiar with things provided reasonable and accurate summations of their contents. It turns out when you assume players are mature adults who don't need a babysitter to make rules for them, they make decisions that are good for the game.

DM's don't make rules, they make rulings. There's a difference. The game designers made the rules.

The DM's job is to play everything in the world that is not a PC. I do not understand why you think he needs the power to decide what rules are being used, or to change those rules, to effectively fill those roles, and I do not see where you have made any argument to that effect.

Other than the fact that the rules explicitly say so in the DMG? Hmmm....let me think.....

You should not be resolving rules debates during table time. That either leads to sloppy decisions for the sake of quickness, or (as you point out) arguments that bog down the game. The solution should be to table the issue until the end of the session, then resolve it between sessions with a discussion involving the whole group and aimed at producing the minimally disruptive solution.

I would LOVE to live in the perfect utopia that you do. A perfect world, where everybody at the table, as sat down as a group for months on end, going over every rule one by one, and discussing exactly how it should be interpreted, voting on it, and then writing it down in some giant book for future reference so that there will never be an rules debate during play.

In the real world, what you get is closer to:

During play, a rule or grey area pops up that nobody encountered before. We'll call it "Rule X" Bob wants rule X to be read one way, because it is more advantageous for him to have it read that way. Not reading that way is very disadvantageous to what Bob wants his character to do at that time, so Bob starts arguing his case.

Tom agrees with Bob, not because it makes sense, but because Bob's proposed action if he gets his way, is advantageous to HIS character.

Harry thinks Bob is silly and gets into a RAW vs RAI debate with Bob.

Jon doesn't care either way, and starts checking his smart phone while the rest of the table debates.

The game is stalled until one side gives up.

If the group had a DM, he could say "Rule X shall be read THIS way. Next campaign we can try it the other way." and the game continues.

What you propose, is that Bob would willingly hamstring his character "for the good of the group".

No, the group should decide on a setting by majority vote, and then all the players should be constrained by it. It would be wrong for me to show up to your Forgotten Realms game with a Space Marine, but it would also be wrong for the DM to unilaterally decide that Space Marines were not acceptable PCs in my Warhammer 40k game because he though they were "OP". The rules are a contract that are meant to produce an experience that is the best possible compromise between the players at the table. Giving one player the right to unilaterally alter that contract can only make a better game if you believe that other people were negotiating in bad faith, and why would you game with someone who won't deal with you in good faith?

... okay....

So, since we can assume that the majority of people who play D&D are just fine with and approve of, the DM having final authority, and that YOU are in the minority, and that you have been out voted and should play by the ruling of the majority, and stop beating this dead horse?

Magic: The Gathering, Arkham Horror, Risk, and Monopoly all function without a DM.

Four minutes to Wapner?

Yes, Cosi, very good. Games that were not designed to have a DM, do indeed function with out a DM. Those are board games (and card games). We are discussing a Role Playing Game, what WAS designed to have a DM. They are similar, in that they are all games. But the similarities stop there. Board games have a very limited scope of actions you can take. Role Playing Games have a nearly unlimited scope of actions you can take. Board games have very simple rules. Role Playing Games have very complex rules. You can win a board game. You don't win a Role Playing Game.

Let me paint a simple analogy for you...

We are talking about birds with wings.
Your keep telling us that fish function with out wings.
Great. Except we're not talking about fish, are we??

Fish and birds are similar, in that they are both animals. But birds are completely different from fish.

Monopoly is a board game. Dungeons & Dragons is a Role Playing Game.

Continuing to invoke board/card games in defense of your "no DMs needed in RPGs" philosophy will only continue to raise doubts about your mental capacity at this point.

Quertus

2018-01-05, 01:04 AM

I agree that makes buffing the Fighter less bad, but I'm not at all convinced it makes it worthwhile. At that point the Fighter is basically showing up with a partial character and asking the rest of the group to cover for the rest of him. That's not really a healthy paradigm.

Well, maybe. Let's explore this a bit.

In previous threads, I've suggested, only half with snark, that true balance would include the Fighter having to spend XP to train the party on teamwork tactical tricks, to balance the Wizard spending XP on items. And the Fighter have to spend his actions to pump the Wizard's HP or fort save to balance the Wizard casting buff spells. And the Fighter having finite resources, to choose to use to buff the party or help him get spotlight time.

Would this make it, now equal, a healthy game? Where everyone had a partial character, and the party is better than the sum of its parts if everyone understands teamwork?

Or would you view it as healthy only if every man is an island, who has no need of the party?

I think that depends on what you mean by "broken" (and to a lesser extent "combining"). The abuses made possible by e.g. SLA wish are fairly straightforward and completely game shattering, while many of the character builds created by voltroning together half a dozen books are simply more powerful than PCs are expected to be without actually breaking the game apart (e.g. the Mailman).

"SLA Wish" is not, afaik, a single class feature - it requires some combining of things to pull off, even if those things are as minimal as a class feature & a creature.

As to what I consider breaking the game - D&D is a game of action economy, of costs, etc. Things that break that break the game.

Quertus

2018-01-05, 01:14 AM

Monopoly is a board game. Dungeons & Dragons is a Role Playing Game.

Continuing to invoke board/card games in defense of your "no DMs needed in RPGs" philosophy will only continue to raise doubts about your mental capacity at this point.

In my rather vast and biased experience, there is a strong correlation between groups with minimalist GMs and functional groups.

Even in RPGs, you don't need an authoritarian GM if everyone knows how to play by the rules. In a more dysfunctional group, things get more dysfunctional. These two statements should be bloody obvious. Where we hit my experience, bias, and opinion is, that an overly authoritarian GM will strongly tend to produce such dysfunction in an otherwise functional group.

Ignimortis

2018-01-05, 02:34 AM

Nobody ever really uses Savage Species other than to dumpster dive for broken stuff because the core purpose of the book, to make Monster Races more playable, was handled terribly. They're almost all mechanically garbage.

But as far as density of OP material it's probably the same as other books. Gate and Shapechange are core and all that.

I actually use Savage Species as a DM - it's been useful several times in building boss encounters. And if we're talking broken books, hoo boy, have you seen the PHB? It's got Wizard in it! And Druid, and Cleric! To be fair, it's also got Monk in it, so it's a wild ride.

I'm pretty sure the thread title is "Which 3.0 books are considered 'broken' or 'op'?", not "Which 3.0 books aren't appropriate in the Forgotten Realms?". But yes, the way the DM approaches the game absolutely influences the players, and the idea that the DM should be the final authority on what is allowed is deeply toxic. It is not his game in which you have the privilege of playing, it is the group's game.

The way I see it, as both a DM and a player, the book-picking is the part of the pre-game, in which the DM does have the ultimate authority. The DM outlines what he wants to run, how his setting works, and thus what books are allowed or disallowed. This is the part where all the rules are outlined, and presumably if they don't suit you, you don't begin to play and don't get your feelings hurt. I find that it's a much better practice to do this before the game and then sticking to your decisions at the time (unless they really hurt your players) than changing things on the fly. Then when the game actually begins, the DM isn't a almighty god and ruler of all, but just an arbitrator who uses the rules that were decided on beforehand to run the game as fairly and consistently as possible.

Mutazoia

2018-01-05, 02:38 AM

In my rather vast and biased experience, there is a strong correlation between groups with minimalist GMs and functional groups.

Even in RPGs, you don't need an authoritarian GM if everyone knows how to play by the rules. In a more dysfunctional group, things get more dysfunctional. These two statements should be bloody obvious. Where we hit my experience, bias, and opinion is, that an overly authoritarian GM will strongly tend to produce such dysfunction in an otherwise functional group.

There is also a difference from "minimalist GMs" and Cosis "Totalitarian GM", under which he seems to group everyone who wears the DM/GM hat. Or at least those who attempt to decide what material they want to allow in a game they are running.

But then, why WOULDN'T they have that authority, since they are the only ones that are putting in the hours and hours of work to create an entire world for the other players to play in...players who just have to create a single individual, which takes an hour or two of work at most? Should said DM, after spending weeks creating an entire campaign set in the Forgotten Realms, allow Bob to bring his Artificer Gish into the game, when Artificers are a product of the Eberron setting, and don't exist in the Forgotten Realms? Why should he allow a Kender in Eberron, or a Thri-Keen in a Dragonlance game?

If Bob wants a Thri-Keen Artificer/Sorcerer/Hexblade Gish to be running around Krynn, let Bob run the next game and make that possible.

NOW....back to the OP (If all this hasn't scared him off by now)...

The easy answer is that you are going to have to have a sit down with your DM. If you find something in a splat that you want to use, then go over it with him, and make sure that he is okay with it, both from a setting stand point, and from a mechanical stand point.

As you can see, you are never going to get a real consensus on what books are over powered from an open forum such as this....too many people with too many viewpoints. You are just going to have to work it out for yourselves.

Melcar

2018-01-05, 04:20 AM

In my personal experience, and also what is being stated here most often, "brokenness" is about jerks abusing some rule or ability to the point of no more fun for the rest of the players! Therefore I would say that nothing is broken in itself!

Some things are more easily abused, where as others are not... In our game very few things have been curtailed, but only when dealing with loops. We have encountered problems when some players play a sword and board fighter and others play wizards, but not because of broken content, but simply because a fighter is incapable of keeping up with a wizards at the same level of optimization. Now I say optimization, but we really don't optimize that much.. we play around 3-4 on that optimization tier list.

So if your are afraid of implementing some content, what you are telling me, is that you are afraid that some jerk player will ruin the fun! Have a talk with them, ask them what they intent, why they want access to this feat or class or spell, and ask them to not ruin the game. Tell them that also that if they intent of looping anything for NI stats, then to look around in the setting. Since no other wizard has yet become Pun Pun, they cant either! You could also tell them, that if they discover some abusable rule, they can be sure others have so too...

Anyways... have fun out there!

Mutazoia

2018-01-05, 05:24 AM

In my personal experience, and also what is being stated here most often, "brokenness" is about jerks abusing some rule or ability to the point of no more fun for the rest of the players! Therefore I would say that nothing is broken in itself!

"Broken" doesn't necessarily have to be intentional. With the number of splats available for 3.X, it is quite possible to stumble upon a "broken" combination of skills/feats/what have you, with out realizing it until it happens. Which is why I recommend sticking to one splat at a time, to minimize the chaos factor.

As the OP was asking for advice, we can assume that he and his group are fairly new to the game, and don't have the level of system mastery that other visitors to this site have, which makes stumbling on those broken combinations much more likely. Sticking to one splat will help cut that risk drastically.

Melcar

2018-01-05, 06:40 AM

"Broken" doesn't necessarily have to be intentional. With the number of splats available for 3.X, it is quite possible to stumble upon a "broken" combination of skills/feats/what have you, with out realizing it until it happens. Which is why I recommend sticking to one splat at a time, to minimize the chaos factor.

As the OP was asking for advice, we can assume that he and his group are fairly new to the game, and don't have the level of system mastery that other visitors to this site have, which makes stumbling on those broken combinations much more likely. Sticking to one splat will help cut that risk drastically.

That could be right sure, but then I would say, when and if it happens, that you choose something (class, feat, spell etc.) that becomes so powerful that it makes gaming not fun for the rest of the party, but again, if you have low system mastery one could imagine that they will not stumble upon anything which is not obviously "broken" (As is way too powerful). They might stumple upon the True Namer, who is considered none-funcktionally broken. But sure... I guess that could happen, but I think the risk of that happening with low system mastery very very slim! So slim, that I would not risk removing great lore/fluff from the table to stifle that small risk.

In either case, if you take a nice talk up front with your players about you wanting to keep balance between players and abilities and everyone is supposed to have a much fun as possible players should restrain from wanting stuff that unhinged this balance. Just by telling your players this, can have a massive effect on how people look at the content of splat books.

I'm not saying that you cant be right, I'm just saying that I for one have never had problems with splat books. We have been playing in Faerun for 15 years now, and Pun Pun does not exist, nor have Larloch or the Srinshee or Ioulaum abused free Zodar wishes or Aleaxes of an Aleax of the Pandorym... They haven't done so, because that is not a viable option in our setting. Simple stating that, have made sure no players went after it either.

As I've said in my experience its ALL about the player. So when we here start listing all the abusive things, the (possibly unexperienced) DM might start shutting down what could be fun and great fluff options for their players, simple because Tippy uses it for some crazy feat turning red dragons into sewing string. That does not mean that everyone else is doing it, can figure our how to do it, or even thinks that's fun. Therefor eliminating an otherwise perfect playable and fun option.

The main reason this game (D&D 3.X) is so great (in my view) is the multiplicity of options. I hate when people start limiting stuff. Usually, when I DM, we use all official plus web and dragon mag, and often we use 3rd part too, if its cool and if it works towards the concept the character is building. So starting off telling new players that Serpent Kingdoms should be burned, when in fact there is super cool lore, spells, monsters and what not in it, is completely insane. Yes the Sarrukh Supernatural Transformation thing is what Pun Pun uses to have NI stats, but who in their right mind would take that road??? Nobody I have ever played with or seen on this forum for that matter.

So to sum up... I don't think there is anything inherently broken in the game, its all about how its applied. What the DM has to do is simple tell his players that this game has to be fun for everyone... that means no spamming gate or chain gating solars - since nobody thinks such a "pres enter to win button" is fun - and concurrently the DM will not setup challenged that would need chain gating solars during timestop!

I'm going in circles now.. but I think my point comes through. Yes there are much abusable stuff, but don't abuse them and basically every option can be great fun for all!

Cosi

2018-01-05, 07:32 AM

If the GM said ahead of time it was an Imperial Guard game, vetoing a Space Marine would be perfectly appropriate.

Only if you agreed to play an Imperial Guard game. The DM doesn't have any special authority in deciding what kind of game it is. Just as he can refuse to run a game that doesn't have whatever set of features he wants, you can refuse to play a game that doesn't have whatever set of features you want. All I'm suggesting is that instead of people taking their ball and going home like children, they talk about things and compromise like adults. This is another one of those places where I get vehement opposition for reasons I am completely unable to comprehend (like suggesting that maybe if your character concept is about the powers you don't have, eventually that stops being a viable concept).

Says someone who's obviously never seen a rules dispute at a Magic tournament. :D

Sure, at Magic tournaments they have judges. But they don't at kitchen tables. One would imagine that if it's possible to play an explicitly competitive game casually without needing a rules enforcer, it's possible to play an explicitly cooperative game without needing a rules enforcer. Indeed, my experience with Magic suggests that doing so is not only possible, but very easy.

Would this make it, now equal, a healthy game? Where everyone had a partial character, and the party is better than the sum of its parts if everyone understands teamwork?

Sure, that paradigm is balanced in theory. But I think in practice if you forced everyone to have synergy abilities, you would end up with some classes that had better sets of synergy abilities, and the game would have a very clear "best party", which I think is bad. It's probably better if classes are largely self contained, or have broad synergies (e.g. BFC is good with DoTs, but also summons and ranged attacks), because that makes the game harder to solve. Also, if every martial character is expected to give tactical advice, then the actual Marshall is kind of left holding the bag.

"SLA Wish" is not, afaik, a single class feature - it requires some combining of things to pull off, even if those things are as minimal as a class feature & a creature.

Sure, but it's pretty minimal. Yes, using shapechange to turn into a Zodar requires you to look up both shapechange and Zodar, but shapechange tells you to go look up monsters. It may be a combination, but it's not any more of a combination than using shapechange at all is under this definition.

Other than the fact that the rules explicitly say so in the DMG? Hmmm....let me think.....

The rules are also quite explicit about the ability to use planar binding to summon an Efreet which can use wish to emulate planar binding to summon another Efreet. I assume you also think this is necessary for a functioning game? Similarly, I assume you believe Swordages getting x6 skill points at first level is essential to the experience of Dungeons and Dragons. Should I go on?

I would LOVE to live in the perfect utopia that you do. A perfect world, where everybody at the table, as sat down as a group for months on end, going over every rule one by one, and discussing exactly how it should be interpreted, voting on it, and then writing it down in some giant book for future reference so that there will never be an rules debate during play.

Do your DMs spend months on end figuring out every ruling they are going to make in advance? Because if they don't, you're being dishonest here. There isn't magically more work because that work is distributed differently.

During play, a rule or grey area pops up that nobody encountered before. We'll call it "Rule X" Bob wants rule X to be read one way, because it is more advantageous for him to have it read that way. Not reading that way is very disadvantageous to what Bob wants his character to do at that time, so Bob starts arguing his case.

And here's the problem. Your demand for a DM with total authority rests on the assumption that people will put their desires over the fun of the group. That's a stupid assumption for two reasons. First, playing with selfish jerks is inherently unfun. There are plenty of things (mostly in the vein of PVP) that aren't fun for other people but are unambiguously allowed by the rules. Second, if your concern is that people will use the rules to make the game less fun for other people, why are you giving one person total authority over everyone else?

So, since we can assume that the majority of people who play D&D are just fine with and approve of, the DM having final authority, and that YOU are in the minority, and that you have been out voted and should play by the ruling of the majority, and stop beating this dead horse?

Yes, if we assume without evidence that your side is right by argument ad populum, your side is right. I think that argument is sufficiently bad that we don't actually need to engage with it.

Those are board games (and card games).

And I suppose if I'd made a point by talking about Shadowrun or Exalted you'd be talking about how those aren't D&D and this is D&D we're talking about? Is the analogy perfect? Of course not. But you do yourself no favors by focusing all your efforts on the differences. Both are group activities that use a formalized system of rules to adjudicate disputes. They're not exactly the same, but there are clear similarity's, and it's foolish to dismiss that out of hand.

Also, at least some people do describe Arkham Horror (https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/15987/arkham-horror) as "role playing".

Board games have very simple rules. Role Playing Games have very complex rules.

The comprehensive rules of Magic are over two hundred pages long, and that is pure rules. There's no fluff there, just explanations for how the game works. That's longer than some RPGs straight out, and if you compare rules-for-rules, I think it's longer than almost everything. The number of cards is on the order of the number of feats, spells, and other abilities in D&D, and larger than many games.

Mordaedil

2018-01-05, 07:56 AM

There's actually quite a bit of fluff in the spells if you read them. Most of them include a description of what happens when you cast the spell, not just the mechanics of the spell. And sometimes the mechanics of the spells include fluff.

flare'90

2018-01-05, 09:26 AM

Sure, at Magic tournaments they have judges. But they don't at kitchen tables. One would imagine that if it's possible to play an explicitly competitive game casually without needing a rules enforcer, it's possible to play an explicitly cooperative game without needing a rules enforcer. Indeed, my experience with Magic suggests that doing so is not only possible, but very easy.

You still have Gatherer, and for most applications it's enough.
Also, I've yet to see a board game (not a collectible card game like Magic of Yu-Gi-Oh) that has more than 50 pages of rules. Most are well under the 10 pages.

Melcar

2018-01-05, 09:33 AM

Sure, but it's pretty minimal. Yes, using shapechange to turn into a Zodar requires you to look up both shapechange and Zodar, but shapechange tells you to go look up monsters. It may be a combination, but it's not any more of a combination than using shapechange at all is under this definition.

I'm just going to add a little comment here. Seeing as your wizard need to know about the spell ingame, unless taking when going from level 16-17, 17-18 etc. shapechange can be a pretty hard spell to come-by. Secondly knowing that a Zodar exist in-game is again based of a knowledge check. Yes the shapechange does not say that you have to know what a zodar is, but if the character has no ranks in knowledge (the planes) he knows not a about a zodar. Just like if the character has not read about it. This is a perfectly reasonable thing to ask. Just like one must have information about a location to teleport there...

So firstly getting the spell, secondly having the knowledge can be quite tasking... The wizards might need to pay good money to access what ever library and maybe even have to do quests for someone to gain access. All I'm saying is just that one's character does not have the metagame knowledge the player has. At least that's how we play... it can be difficult to disregard such knowledge, but we try...

Mutazoia

2018-01-05, 10:53 AM

The rules are also quite explicit about the ability to use planar binding to summon an Efreet which can use wish to emulate planar binding to summon another Efreet. I assume you also think this is necessary for a functioning game? Similarly, I assume you believe Swordages getting x6 skill points at first level is essential to the experience of Dungeons and Dragons. Should I go on?

Yes, please do continue more instances of times where a DM could say "nope. Not gonna happen".

Do your DMs spend months on end figuring out every ruling they are going to make in advance? Because if they don't, you're being dishonest here. There isn't magically more work because that work is distributed differently.

You imply that an entire group will sit down and work any and all problems out before hand. Given the amount of work, I found this unrealistic, and described it in such a fashion.

And here's the problem. Your demand for a DM with total authority rests on the assumption that people will put their desires over the fun of the group. That's a stupid assumption for two reasons. First, playing with selfish jerks is inherently unfun. There are plenty of things (mostly in the vein of PVP) that aren't fun for other people but are unambiguously allowed by the rules. Second, if your concern is that people will use the rules to make the game less fun for other people, why are you giving one person total authority over everyone else?

DM: A monster attacks
Player 1: No...I vote the monster has a heart attack and dies.
Player 2: I agree.
Player 3: I agree.
Player 4: Same here...this is more fun. Give us Treasure.

Yeah...that's MUCH better

(Oh...forgot to point out the hyperbole)

Yes, if we assume without evidence that your side is right by argument ad populum, your side is right. I think that argument is sufficiently bad that we don't actually need to engage with it.

To date, you are the ONLY person who has expressed this opinion. Other people on this thread alone, have challenged your opinion.

As this point in space/time, the number of people that have disagreed with you is greater than any who have risen to defend your point (none have by my count). We can positively extrapolate from there.

And I suppose if I'd made a point by talking about Shadowrun or Exalted you'd be talking about how those aren't D&D and this is D&D we're talking about? Is the analogy perfect? Of course not. But you do yourself no favors by focusing all your efforts on the differences. Both are group activities that use a formalized system of rules to adjudicate disputes. They're not exactly the same, but there are clear similarity's, and it's foolish to dismiss that out of hand.

Shadowrun and Exalted are RPGs. If you posted "Shadowrun functions with out a GM", then I would ask you to explain the logic underlying your conclusion.

Instead, we talk about an RPG, which is designed to have a DM, and you keep telling us chess/monopoly/risk/MTG (all games that do not have a DM/GM function as part of their design) work with out a DM. Your logic appears to be that since you don't need a DM for a non-role playing game, you don't need one for a role playing game either. Apples and oranges.

So go get your fish sticks, tune in to wapner, and continue to tell everybody what an excellent driver you are.

The comprehensive rules of Magic are over two hundred pages long, and that is pure rules. There's no fluff there, just explanations for how the game works. That's longer than some RPGs straight out, and if you compare rules-for-rules, I think it's longer than almost everything. The number of cards is on the order of the number of feats, spells, and other abilities in D&D, and larger than many games.

But MtG is STILL not an RPG, ergo your comparison STILL is not valid.

All Penguins are black and white.
All old movies are black and white.
Ergo all old movies are Penguins.

Yup...that seems right ...

Cosi

2018-01-05, 11:29 AM

I'm just going to add a little comment here. Seeing as your wizard need to know about the spell ingame, unless taking when going from level 16-17, 17-18 etc. shapechange can be a pretty hard spell to come-by. Secondly knowing that a Zodar exist in-game is again based of a knowledge check. Yes the shapechange does not say that you have to know what a zodar is, but if the character has no ranks in knowledge (the planes) he knows not a about a zodar. Just like if the character has not read about it. This is a perfectly reasonable thing to ask. Just like one must have information about a location to teleport there...

So firstly getting the spell, secondly having the knowledge can be quite tasking... The wizards might need to pay good money to access what ever library and maybe even have to do quests for someone to gain access. All I'm saying is just that one's character does not have the metagame knowledge the player has. At least that's how we play... it can be difficult to disregard such knowledge, but we try...

I don't think this is responsive to the question or supported by the rules.

Yes, please do continue more instances of times where a DM could say "nope. Not gonna happen".

I think you're missing some important context. When I asked why you thought it was important that the DM have the powers you want:

I do not understand why you think he needs the power to decide what rules are being used, or to change those rules, to effectively fill those roles, and I do not see where you have made any argument to that effect.

You replied that the justification was that was what the DMG says:

Other than the fact that the rules explicitly say so in the DMG? Hmmm....let me think.....

So I presented a couple of cases where the rules say things you might not want the game to do. So why is it necessary that we follow the parts of the rules that say "the DM can change things unilaterally" but not the rules that say "anyone who can shell out for a single casting of planar binding gets an infinite army"? Is it because some rules might be bad? If that is the case, shouldn't you provide an affirmative defense of your position rather than shrieking about how "it's in the rules and design and therefore I can't possibly be wrong because it is and therefore it ought"?

You imply that an entire group will sit down and work any and all problems out before hand. Given the amount of work, I found this unrealistic, and described it in such a fashion.

The group should sit down and figure out what kind of game they want to play in advance. Then, having figured that out, they should resolve issues as they arise (though, generally between settings). This is exactly what you want the DM to do, expect other people get to have an opinion.

Yeah...that's MUCH better

I mean, isn't it? If four out of five people genuinely want to collect loot from monsters that just died of heart attacks, is the game really more fun if you tell them they can't do that? Isn't the point of the game to do what you think is fun?

But MtG is STILL not an RPG, ergo your comparison STILL is not valid.

MtG is still a game.

Melcar

2018-01-05, 12:07 PM

I don't think this is responsive to the question or supported by the rules.

Not supported by the rules? So you're saying that every level 17 wizard (18 for sorcerer), knows every monster in the multiverse up to 25 HD? Are you kidding me? Thats is not supported by the rules! Nor is is supported for the gate spell! You have to know what to turn into, and that's not based on metagame player knowledge! And none of te spells says they give you the information necessary to know all monsters!

Eldariel

2018-01-05, 12:28 PM

Not supported by the rules? So you're saying that every level 17 wizard (18 for sorcerer), knows every monster in the multiverse up to 25 HD? Are you kidding me? Thats is not supported by the rules! Nor is is supported for the gate spell! You have to know what to turn into, and that's not based on metagame player knowledge! And none of te spells says they give you the information necessary to know all monsters!

Wizard, however, is looking at ~+11 Int and ~+21 ranks in all the creature detection Knowledge skills (because they're kinda big deal) alongside +1 Luck (Luckstone) and +1 Competence (Orange Prism Ioun Stone) for something like +34 at least (not counting masterwork tools, spells, skill buffing items or whatever) to all those Knowledge-checks so it's not like he can fail for any 25HD- creature.

Zanos

2018-01-05, 12:34 PM

Melcar

2018-01-05, 01:17 PM

Wizard, however, is looking at ~+11 Int and ~+21 ranks in all the creature detection Knowledge skills (because they're kinda big deal) alongside +1 Luck (Luckstone) and +1 Competence (Orange Prism Ioun Stone) for something like +34 at least (not counting masterwork tools, spells, skill buffing items or whatever) to all those Knowledge-checks so it's not like he can fail for any 25HD- creature.

Sure... I'm not saying that. Agree with totally there, but, you have to have ranks in the appropriate knowledge skill (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/knowledge.htm)...

I base knowledge about a creature to DC 10+HD.

He'd have to make a knowledge check, as Eldariel alludes to. Not really abnormal for a level 17 wizard to have +30 or more for knowledge rolls.

Totally agree...

InvisibleBison

2018-01-05, 03:17 PM

Sure... I'm not saying that. Agree with totally there, but, you have to have ranks in the appropriate knowledge skill (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/knowledge.htm)...

I base knowledge about a creature to DC 10+HD.

First of all, the DC 10+HD Knowledge check is to identify something as being a specific creature, not to know that a certain kind of creature exists.

Additionally, ruling that you need to be able to make a DC 10+HD Knowledge check to know anything about a creature runs into a problem when someone who can't make that check encounters a creature. For example, it's a DC 32 Knowledge (arcana) check to recognize an adult red dragon and to know that it can breathe fire. What happens when a person with a K(arcana) modifier of +0 encounters an adult red dragon and sees it use its breath weapon? Since he can't make the knowledge check, he can't know that the dragon has that ability, but he just saw it happen!

edathompson2

2018-01-05, 04:50 PM

Ahhhhhh. 3.0. Take great cleave, whirlwind attack, and a bucket of snails. 1,000,000 attacks. Yeah!

Melcar

2018-01-05, 05:36 PM

First of all, the DC 10+HD Knowledge check is to identify something as being a specific creature, not to know that a certain kind of creature exists.

Additionally, ruling that you need to be able to make a DC 10+HD Knowledge check to know anything about a creature runs into a problem when someone who can't make that check encounters a creature. For example, it's a DC 32 Knowledge (arcana) check to recognize an adult red dragon and to know that it can breathe fire. What happens when a person with a K(arcana) modifier of +0 encounters an adult red dragon and sees it use its breath weapon? Since he can't make the knowledge check, he can't know that the dragon has that ability, but he just saw it happen!

If you have +0 in your knowledge check and your roll is poor you don't know its a dragon, you just know its a fire breathing beast... ask about that to locals and maybe they will be able to tell you its a red dragon.

Os so it says: "[...] you can use this skill to identify monsters and their special powers or vulnerabilities [...]" Is that not exactly what is means to know about a creatures existence enough to not just know that there is something out there which is called a Zodar. But unless you know what a Zodar is, you're are not turning into one. So I think the DC 10+HD fits the bill perfectly!

Now if you have encountered a red dragon, put on your sheet and note every ability is uses... Use your +0 knowledge skill to see if you can remember your information next time. Same thing with a Zodar... if you have encountered one, and it identifies itself to you as a Zodar or someone in your party can identify it for you apply the same logic...

Too many players assume that because they know something their character knows is too... I know a dragon is a legendary beast, but a Zodar is not... they are a very obscure unknown origin construct. Hell.. I had never heard of it before I started reading all the optimization threads here... so for the first 11 years of playing D&D 3.X I had never heard of it!

Mutazoia

2018-01-05, 07:42 PM

So I presented a couple of cases where the rules say things you might not want the game to do. So why is it necessary that we follow the parts of the rules that say "the DM can change things unilaterally" but not the rules that say "anyone who can shell out for a single casting of planar binding gets an infinite army"? Is it because some rules might be bad? If that is the case, shouldn't you provide an affirmative defense of your position rather than shrieking about how "it's in the rules and design and therefore I can't possibly be wrong because it is and therefore it ought"?

That IS why the DM has "final authority". In order to prevent a player from taking advantage of loopholes like the one you mention. Note I say "final authority" not "complete and total authority". Eventually, you are going to need on person that can break ties, make arbitrary decisions, and keep things rolling.

The model you describe is known as communism, which hasn't worked too well, historically speaking. The notion that everybody has equal power doesn't actually work. Eventually some peoples equal power ends up being more equal that the rest. It's human nature. It's happened every time communism has been put into action on much larger scales than your gaming table.

The group should sit down and figure out what kind of game they want to play in advance. Then, having figured that out, they should resolve issues as they arise (though, generally between settings). This is exactly what you want the DM to do, expect other people get to have an opinion.

Can you quote anywhere, where anyone has said that the players do not get an opinion? I don't think you can, because nobody has. See the above bit about tie breaking, et al.

I mean, isn't it? If four out of five people genuinely want to collect loot from monsters that just died of heart attacks, is the game really more fun if you tell them they can't do that? Isn't the point of the game to do what you think is fun?

Sure, but at that point they are not really playing a role playing game, are they? They might as well just buy a module (going old school here), read it over as a group, and just hand out XP and treasure, with out actually playing the thing.

MtG is still a game.

Seriously? I thought we went over this.

Yes.
MtG is a game.
It is NOT a role playing game, and therefor cannot be used in the context which you continue to attempt to use it for.

MtG was never designed to have a DM.

Ergo, you cannot hold it up as the holy grail of your "no DMs in RPGs" philosophy.

Yes MtG functions with out a DM.
Banannas function with out a DM.
Rocks function with out a DM.
Cats function with out a DM.
Your mom functions with out a DM. Well I assume she does...you never know. She might be into that kind of thing.

None of those things can be used to make your case that RPGs don't need a DM, as they were never supposed to have them in the first place.

Vhaidara

2018-01-05, 07:53 PM

Sure... I'm not saying that. Agree with totally there, but, you have to have ranks in the appropriate knowledge skill (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/knowledge.htm)...

~+21 ranks in all the creature detection Knowledge skills (because they're kinda big deal)

Glad you two agree on this.

Cosi

2018-01-05, 11:15 PM

That IS why the DM has "final authority".

So we should trust the rules to give the DM final authority because the rules have flaws? Do you not see the giant hole in that argument?

The model you describe is known as communism, which hasn't worked too well, historically speaking. The notion that everybody has equal power doesn't actually work. Eventually some peoples equal power ends up being more equal that the rest. It's human nature. It's happened every time communism has been put into action on much larger scales than your gaming table.

You should pick a less explicitly political analogy, because I am close to 100% confident the mods are not going to allow extended discussion of communism's historical performance on these forums. Also, it's kind of pointlessly incendiary. The system "people vote on things" is called democracy. The fact that you think that is the same thing as communism, and that it can't work without someone who can overrule the opinions of voters is, honestly, kind of disturbing.

It is NOT a role playing game, and therefor cannot be used in the context which you continue to attempt to use it for.

First, Arkham Horror is, as I have pointed out, listed as an RPG.

Second, the position that the only lessons relevant to RPG design are from other RPGs is absurd. You should make a better argument than "these are not the exact same genre" if you want to conclude "therefore no part of the second is relevant". There are lots of lessons from non-TCGs that apply to MtG. There are lessons from non-RTS games that apply to Starcraft. For example, MtG makes an effort to have there be variance between games and to provide distinct playstyles. Neither of those things are unique to TCGs, and both of them are present in D&D. Why are those lessons applicable, but "you don't need someone who can unilaterally decide what the rules are" not?

MtG was never designed to have a DM.

Is/Ought. Also, "has a DM" does not imply "has a DM that does what Mutazoia wants". My position is not "no DM". Also, "it needs a DM because the rules say it has a DM" is circular, as is "it's not relevant to whether a game can function without a DM because it doesn't have a DM".

vasilidor

2018-01-06, 03:19 AM

on the communism note: it generally functions ok in a small scale (groups no larger than triple digits), but crumbles on the larger scale. also many so called communist states are not really communist states. in my head i have an idea for a time travel adventure for shadowrunners to go to 1955 just to set up a "are you a communist" question, just so that those characters without knowledge in history can ask "whats a communist".

more on topic: the most broken options in the game that are almost guaranteed to come up, assuming the game last long enough, are 9th level spells. a few have already been mentioned i believe. hat said there are some books out there that have feats that, in function, are as powerful as spells. others outright grant spells. I see no problem with these.

Mutazoia

2018-01-06, 08:07 AM

So we should trust the rules to give the DM final authority because the rules have flaws? Do you not see the giant hole in that argument?

Let me point out the giant hole in YOUR argument, and them I'm done with this.

You profess that players should make decisions via majority vote, and that members of a group will always put the good of the group above themselves.

We have already established that the number of people who subscribe to your "DM shouldn't have final authority" is far less (zero not counting you so far) than those how have spoken against it. Making YOU the minority vote.

BY YOUR OWN ARGUMENT, YOU SHOULD STOP ARGUING YOUR THEORY, BECAUSE THE MAJORITY VOTED AGAINST YOU.

But, you continue to prove MY point, by NOT putting the matter aside for later discussion in your own thread, but continue to derail THIS one. You continue to act in your own self interest, despite your assertions that people will never do this.

For bonus points, I will point out that you mentioned the Mods. The Mods HAVE FINAL AUTHORITY over these forums. I don't see you arguing that every member of the forums should just vote on stuff and that mods (or The Giant) should have no more authority than anybody else.

(I'm sure you'll find some way to shoe-horn "Chess doesn't have Mods" in here somewhere)

Good day sir.

Cosi

2018-01-06, 08:21 AM

We have already established that the number of people who subscribe to your "DM shouldn't have final authority" is far less (zero not counting you so far) than those how have spoken against it. Making YOU the minority vote.

BY YOUR OWN ARGUMENT, YOU SHOULD STOP ARGUING YOUR THEORY, BECAUSE THE MAJORITY VOTED AGAINST YOU.

I don't think you understand how voting works. You don't immediately abandon your position because you lose a vote. You don't get your way, but you don't literally change your position. Would you immediately stop liking D&D if your group decided to play Shadowrun once?

Also, there are at least a couple of people in this thread who have expressed some level of support for my position.

NamelessNPC

2018-01-06, 09:04 AM

I don't think you understand how voting works. You don't immediately abandon your position because you lose a vote. You don't get your way, but you don't literally change your position. Would you immediately stop liking D&D if your group decided to play Shadowrun once?

Also, there are at least a couple of people in this thread who have expressed some level of support for my position.

Nah, the real rebuttal is that a forum needs authority in the form of mods because strangers are aggressive in the internet. An rpg is played among friends with the cooperative goal of having fun.

Scots Dragon

2018-01-06, 09:13 AM

I wouldn't even view the issue of Dungeon Master authority as being purely for moderative purposes.

At the core of it, a Dungeon Master has to put a lot more work in to making the game work than basically anyone else at the table, and the least the players could do in that situation is perhaps go along with the campaign that the Dungeon Master's prepared to run. A Dungeon Master who doesn't want to deal with stuff that they're unfamiliar with or wants to otherwise ban stuff that doesn't fit their campaign is entirely within their rights to do so. While naturally the players should have input, it's ultimately the DM who has to do all the work, so the players ought to at least respect that.

If one or more of the players wants to play in a different campaign then they can run that campaign themselves. The same applies to running different games entirely.

Cosi

2018-01-06, 09:42 AM

At the core of it, a Dungeon Master has to put a lot more work in to making the game work than basically anyone else at the table,

Do you also believe that a player who puts a lot of effort into optimizing their character deserves to overshadow other PCs? If not, why does their effort not entitle them to more control over the game in the same way the DM's does?

and the least the players could do in that situation is perhaps go along with the campaign that the Dungeon Master's prepared to run.

If my job is just to "go along" with the DM's grand plan, why do I need to be there? Couldn't the DM just write down how they want things to go, and then have me read it later at my pleasure?

NamelessNPC

2018-01-06, 10:11 AM

A Dungeon Master who doesn't want to deal with stuff that they're unfamiliar with or wants to otherwise ban stuff that doesn't fit their campaign is entirely within their rights to do so.

And why is that an exclusive dm prerrogative? If I as a player don't want to deal with, for example, pathfinder city building subsystem or pursuit subsystem, do I just suck it up? Rpgs are a social activity, everyone should be comfortable with the rules and themes and whatnot. That is not an exclusive right for the dm

Scots Dragon

2018-01-06, 10:26 AM

And why is that an exclusive dm prerrogative? If I as a player don't want to deal with, for example, pathfinder city building subsystem or pursuit subsystem, do I just suck it up? Rpgs are a social activity, everyone should be comfortable with the rules and themes and whatnot. That is not an exclusive right for the dm

I never said it was, but on the topic of the DM banning stuff it wasn't a relevant point to list.

NamelessNPC

2018-01-06, 10:39 AM

I never said it was, but on the topic of the DM banning stuff it wasn't a relevant point to list.

So then we agree that regulating content is a group endeavor, and no participant has no "final authority" to overrule the group?
I thought that was your point, that dms had that right. Sorry if I misunderstood

P.F.

2018-01-06, 11:17 AM

1. Games have rules.
2. D&D is a game.
3. Therefore, D&D has rules.

And what do these rules say about the role of the DM?

ADJUDICATING

When everyone gathers around the table to play the game, you're in charge. That doesn't mean you can tell people what to do outside the boundaries of the game, but it does mean that you're the final arbiter of the rules within the game. Good players will always recognize that you have ultimate authority over the game mechanics, even superseding something in a rulebook. Good DMs know not to change or overturn a published rule without a good, logical justification so that the players don't rebel...

To carry out this responsibility, you need to know the rules. You're not required to memorize the rulebooks, but you should have a clear idea of what's in them, so that when a situation comes up that requires a ruling, you know where to reference the proper rule in the book.

This makes it pretty clear that the DM's responsibility is to interpret and enforce the published rules. The DM should understand these rules, and use them to determine the success or viability of players' declared actions. If necessary, the DM can supersede or overturn the rules, which allows the game to function even in the case of clearly dysfunctional rules, or absurd but technically logical parsing of specific game mechanics.

However, if a player's interpretation of the rules differs from that of the DM, recognizing the DM's ultimate authority, he or she will wish to rules-lawyer the issue. At this point, another rule may be cited:

Book Use: It's best if you decide ahead of time which books (other than the Player's Handbook) a player can reference during a playing session.
Rules Discussions: It's probably best if players don't question your rulings or established rules ... during the game itself. Such matters are best addressed at the beginning or end of the session.

Now of course players with rules disputes will request immediate injunctions allowing their personal rules interpretations to stand for the remainder of play, until such time as an evidentiary hearing may be held to resolve the matter. This relies on the discretion of the DM, but should be ruled upon immediately, so as not to disrupt the game for the other players.

Cosi

2018-01-06, 01:59 PM

1. Games have rules.
2. D&D is a game.
3. Therefore, D&D has rules.

And what do these rules say about the role of the DM?

You're already missing the point. The question isn't "what do the rules say". The question is "what should the rules say". As I've pointed out a couple of times now, the rules say lots of things that people generally agree they shouldn't. Chain Binding is RAW legal. If the operative question is simply "what do the rules say", then Chain Binding is an acceptable behavior. Given that I have seen exactly zero tables where Chain Binding would be accepted without restriction, I do not believe the operative question is "what do the rules say".

Melcar

2018-01-06, 04:23 PM

So we should trust the rules to give the DM final authority because the rules have flaws? Do you not see the giant hole in that argument?

Yes! Yes we should! The DM is running the game, therefore his ruling goes! That basically what Rule Zero means!

Yahzi

2018-01-07, 04:43 AM

Magic: The Gathering, Arkham Horror, Risk, and Monopoly all function without a DM.
D&D is not like those other games. Surely you've noticed that?

I ban everything except Core in my game. And I've written about 100,000 words on changes to Core. I wrote a computer program to create my world, complete with kingdoms and the ranks/classes of the ruling class. Just including Core was enough work (and there aren't even any Monks). Asking to play a half-dragon half-warforged Factotum requires me to modify my world - which has already been created in its entirety - to add warforged, Factotums, and half-dragons.

Classes don't exist in a vacuum. You can't be a Cleric without a church, a Paladin without a Holy Order, a Wizard without a school or mentor, a Druid without a circle. You can't be a half-Duergar unless Duergar exist somewhere. Your character does not appear fully formed in a tavern with no ties to existing social institutions, people, or history. In sheer point of fact I usually start my games at 0th level, with the characters as peasants from the same village. (They can choose their gender. :smallsmile:)

Plenty of people seem to enjoy my game and the details I bring to it. You might not be one of them. Which is fine! But having a DM tightly control the content of a world is not toxic. In many cases, it actually produces flavor.

What a DM primarily owes the players is consistency. Second is descriptive information. Between those two, players can make interesting choices. Which is what the game is about. The crunch is just there to make the choices interesting.

Yahzi

2018-01-07, 04:50 AM

on the communism note: it generally functions ok in a small scale (groups no larger than triple digits)
Which describes most of human history - you know, the 240,000+ years before we invented farming.

Making communism the most successful government style in history - even if we don't want to live by it now. :smallbiggrin:

Yogibear41

2018-01-07, 10:53 PM

Souls as power from BOVD always struck me as weak. Only 3 xp from using a soul, no matter how powerful it is? Really?

atemu1234

2018-01-08, 02:22 AM

Souls as power from BOVD always struck me as weak. Only 3 xp from using a soul, no matter how powerful it is? Really?

True, but on the other hand, I wouldn't want players relying on soul trapping as a means of cheap secondary income. Diminishing returns seems balanced in this case.

KillingAScarab

2018-01-08, 12:12 PM

Most of the discussion seems to be around 1st party 3rd edition books, so I thought some 3rd party material might be appreciated. Green Ronin published Pocket Grimoire Arcane and Pocket Grimoire Divine, which were ambitious attempts to consolidate Open Gaming License spells from multiple sources into something portable. The quality of some of these spells is especially cheesy, however. Sanguine strength, originally Strength of Kadum from Relics & Rituals (https://roninarmy.com/gr-forum-archive/viewtopic.php?f=28&t=343), grants an enhancement bonus to strength which is limited by the lesser of caster level or the source of the blood for the material component. So, if you could get the blood of a giant, you could raise someone's strength to be equal to that giant's. However, there was a divine version which substituted a divine focus for the material component. As an 8th level spell for clerics, but also an 8th level spell for the strength domain, that's a +15 to strength minimum you can cast at least twice a day once it is available. Eating weed, originally gutroot in Relics & Rituals, is good for some situational nightmare fuel. A fifth level druid and plant domain spell, if you fail a fortitude save and the target isn't exclusively carnivorous, plant matter in their digestive tract does a max of 15d6 damage as it grows out of them. There was also a time domain published from The Tide of Years which included time stop as an eighth level spell.

Another 3rd party book worth mentioning is Rings of Power from Fast Forward Entertainment. The idea was interesting, a book of magic rings for which you could also order a physical prop. However, story is paramount in describing all of the rings, and the d20 system logo on the cover was an afterthought. Drawmij's Wizard Ring granted four effects which aren't spelled out as extraordinary, supernatural, spell-like abilities or even what kind of action they required. The destroy undead ability is ambiguous enough that you could read it as having a 50% chance of being available on a given day, rather than being successful. But, we're here for the cheese, so how about the part where you could touch a lich and turn it into dust after that coin flip? How about being able to charm an entire "type" of undead? The ring also has, "Immunity to Undead."

Immunity to Undead: The wearer of this ring is immune to all effects of the undead, from undead spells to the touch of the undead. I would love to see how that interacts if you also have the Ring of Darkness on the next page.

The ring wearer is slowly turned into a Bodak.There's a stat block which follows, so you turn into a very specific Bodak, without the special attacks or special qualities such as "flashbacks" being explained. No time restrictions are noted. If you put this ring on, after some period of time, you become a CR 8 bodak. Gift it to the campaign antagonist after you've gained the ability to negate their death gaze. Alternately, do so after you have captured them and ensured it's going to be a sunny day; the Ring of Darkness produces no such effect and doesn't grant control of any undead until you have worn it for a year.