3.x is not broken and should not be fixed

[King of Nowhere]

we all know the arguments. 3.x is broken because it has no balance, those classes/builds/stuff have too wildly different power levels, those worldbuilding elements are inconsistent, you can get infinite wish chains with a candle of evocation, infinite gold from wall of salt, you can abuse the economy by buying a ladder, dismantling it, and reselling it as two ten-foot poles at a premium.
and a lot has been attempted to "fix" those problems, most notably the 4th and 5th edition. well, we are still here, so i guess we aren't very satisfied with those. the major problem ascribed to those editions is that they lack the customization of 3.x

there's the catch. the only way to remove brokenness is to remove options.

3.x must not be considered a set of internally consistent sources. it is not a fantasy kitchen sink gathering all kinds of splatbooks. especially, it must not be considered a ruleset to abuse and exploit.
3.x is a workshop. a well-stocked workshop where someone who knows his way can do almost anything. so, you can make both a bike and a racing car. now, arguing that 3.x is broken is like arguing that since the racing car is faster than a bike, and the workshop can make both, then the workshop is broken. you could argue that the "bike gears" class is too weak because it will never be able to outperform a racing car.
indeed, all the attempts to fix the game have concentrated on forbidding people from making racing cars, or sometimes on forbidding them to make bikes. which removes options.

you can't possibly fix balance without drastically reducing customization.

but people complain of in-game balance. well, perhaps here a chemical lab would work better as an example. a well-stocked chemical lab where an experienced chemist can synthesize pretty much any substance. swap "chemist" with "player" and "substance" with "build", and you're there. the thing is, a chemical lab is dangerous. some substances are toxic if handled without proper care. if you mix the wrong stuff, they explode. the guy working there needs to know what he's doing. else, the only way to make the place "safe" is to remove all substances that could possibly explode. which means, most of them. and frankly, if your chemist is determined to make his lab explode, and he cannot, then either he's not a good chemist, or he doesn't have a real lab.
the same goes for a gaming system. if you have enough variety, a skilled player will find a way to break something. if a skilled player cannot break anything, then your system is too limiting. havign stuff that can explode is mishandled is the price for having stuff at all. and just like it's the chemist's duty to ensure he does not make anything explode, so it is the players' duty to not create toxic gaming situations with the rules. just like if an incompetent chemist blows up his lab we don't blame the lab, we blame him, so if we have a gaming party with a DMM persistomancer codzilla and a sword-and-board figther, we should not blame the system, we should blame the players for not having a proper session 0.

a major downside, of course, is that only skilled people can use this workshop/lab properly. unskilled people may make something explode by accident. it is part of the duty of the most skilled players to help everyone ensure the situation at the table resolves to everyone's satisfaction.

so, 3.x is not broken, but it is dangerous (though unlike the chemical lab, in this case nothing blows up, at worst you have unfun games). it requires skill to use. you must know what you are doing.
there are many, many ways to break the game. some people think they are good for being able to break the game, but they are wrong. the game is not made to be unbreakable. breaking the game is easy to the point it's not even fun to try. skill at 3.x is about not breaking the game. for you, and for the entire table

let's stop complaining about broken rules, broken classes, broken sources. let's accept that this wonderful workshop give us more freedom than any other, to the point that we can make things so different from each other, that they cannot play together. that it's unavoidable that such freedom would result in things that can be broken. just like the only way to make the workshop "balanced" would be to remove the workshop and give everyone the same models. just like the only way to keep a kid from getting hurt playing is to forbid him from playing. 3.x cannot be made safe, cannot be "fixed", without removing all the freedom of customization we came to like so much.

[False God]

Enjoying a thing that is broken is not the same as enjoying the fact that it's broken.

[JNAProductions]

The main reason I consider 3.X to be broken is the design goals.

As far as I know, 3.X was supposed to be balanced. The game operates under the assumption that a Wizard 11 is equal to a Fighter 11-not in ALL ways, but generally. That's just... Not true. Not true at all. Not even close.

In terms of a balanced game, that you can sit down with friends, pick cool, thematic options and have a grand ol' time... It fails miserably.
But, it's still fun. It requires far more dedication and knowledge to make fun than it should, but that doesn't stop it from being enjoyable.

[Florian]

Agree with JNA.

The promise of a "balanced game" is that whatever you pick, you have fun with it on equal footing with the other players. Yeah, build and system mastery are part of the thing, but in general, you pay the same "coin", you should get the same value, so leveling up that Ftr11 and Wiz11 "cost" the same amount of EXP, so it should deliver in return.

Else, we must admit that o/A D&D was more correct and honest, as one level of Wiz cost about twice as much as Ftr and both cost triple as much as Thief.

[Biggus]

now, arguing that 3.x is broken is like arguing that since the racing car is faster than a bike, and the workshop can make both, then the workshop is broken

The brokenness is not so much that some classes are a bike and others are racing car, it's that some classes are a bike and others are a TARDIS.



you can't possibly fix balance without drastically reducing customization


Depends what you mean by "fix balance". If you mean "make all classes exactly equal in power" you're right, but very few of the 3.5 "fixes" I've seen have have attempted to do that; apart from anything else, you'd have to rewrite pretty much the entire game. If you mean "make classes equal enough that the result of a fight between two different ones is not a foregone conclusion as it often is now" I disagree, as this can be done while banning or severely nerfing only a tiny percentage of the options. If the vast majority of the changes consist of lifting up the lower-tier classes, and also you change the way problematic abilities work in most cases rather than banning them, the game doesn't really suffer at all.

On a side note, one of the main things I enjoy about 3.5 is the endless hours I can spend tinkering with it, trying to find ways to improve the bad parts without losing the good parts is an endlessly fascinating puzzle.

[King of Nowhere]

The main reason I consider 3.X to be broken is the design goals.

As far as I know, 3.X was supposed to be balanced. The game operates under the assumption that a Wizard 11 is equal to a Fighter 11-not in ALL ways, but generally. That's just... Not true. Not true at all. Not even close.


that much is true. the developers failed to predict what the vastitiy of options available to magic would create.
but this is no longer the developer's design. how many hours did the developers spent playtesting d&d, versus how many hours the online community has spent? i say this game fully belongs to us now


If you mean "make classes equal enough that the result of a fight between two different ones is not a foregone conclusion as it often is now" I disagree, as this can be done while banning or severely nerfing only a tiny percentage of the options. If the vast majority of the changes consist of lifting up the lower-tier classes, and also you change the way problematic abilities work in most cases rather than banning them, the game doesn't really suffer at all.

On a side note, one of the main things I enjoy about 3.5 is the endless hours I can spend tinkering with it, trying to find ways to improve the bad parts without losing the good parts is an endlessly fascinating puzzle.

indeed, but i wouldn't call it "fixing". I would call it adjusting to the table, the campaign, the feel you are aiming at. I also tinker with rules to get them coherent with my worldbuilding, or to create an even playing field for the various classes - being one of the mechanically experienced people in my group, i am responsible for making sure that there aren't huge power differences across the table.

this tinkering - and the fact that most tables do something like that, and each table has a different balance point - lends weight to my argument that 3.x works not when taken at face value, but as something to tinker with, to get many possible desirable results.
if all tables had the same houserules and the same bans for the most powerful options, then indeed 3.x would be broken and the universal houserules and bans would be the fix. but since everyone has a different fix, and all work for their tables, then it's no longer a matter of "fixing" and more of "picking your flavor"

[JNAProductions]

that much is true. the developers failed to predict what the vastitiy of options available to magic would create.
but this is no longer the developer's design. how many hours did the developers spent playtesting d&d, versus how many hours the online community has spent? i say this game fully belongs to us now

indeed, but i wouldn't call it "fixing". I would call it adjusting to the table, the campaign, the feel you are aiming at. I also tinker with rules to get them coherent with my worldbuilding, or to create an even playing field for the various classes - being one of the mechanically experienced people in my group, i am responsible for making sure that there aren't huge power differences across the table.

this tinkering - and the fact that most tables do something like that, and each table has a different balance point - lends weight to my argument that 3.x works not when taken at face value, but as something to tinker with, to get many possible desirable results.
if all tables had the same houserules and the same bans for the most powerful options, then indeed 3.x would be broken and the universal houserules and bans would be the fix. but since everyone has a different fix, and all work for their tables, then it's no longer a matter of "fixing" and more of "picking your flavor"

The fact that most tables need to houserule shows that it IS broken.

Again, no one is saying it's not fun. No one is saying you're bad for enjoying it. But honestly, I'd consider it less broken if the houserules to fix it were consistent. If, say, every houserule were as obvious as making Monks proficient in unarmed strikes, then it'd be okay. It's a mistake so minor and with a fix so obvious that it's not a real problem in any table I've ever heard of. But that's not the case with a large amount of fixes.

[Batcathat]

if all tables had the same houserules and the same bans for the most powerful options, then indeed 3.x would be broken and the universal houserules and bans would be the fix. but since everyone has a different fix, and all work for their tables, then it's no longer a matter of "fixing" and more of "picking your flavor"

Something that has to be fixed by the users before working as intended sounds pretty broken though, doesn't it? If you bought a car and had to spend hours tinkering with it before it worked as advertised, I'd say you'd bought a broken car, though not necessarily an irreirreparably broken one.

[Segev]

The game operates under the assumption that a Wizard 11 is equal to a Fighter 11-not in ALL ways, but generally. That's just... Not true.

So, here's an interesting question: at what level of wizard is a fighter-11 equivalent? At what level of fighter is wizard-11 equivalent (if ever)?

If we decoupled level, but changed how much XP a class needed to level up, could we couple XP totals such that the classes are balanced based on XP totals? (We can start, for simplicity, with single-class only, and discuss multiclassing mechanisms later.)

[Florian]

So, here's an interesting question: at what level of wizard is a fighter-11 equivalent? At what level of fighter is wizard-11 equivalent (if ever)?

If we decoupled level, but changed how much XP a class needed to level up, could we couple XP totals such that the classes are balanced based on XP totals? (We can start, for simplicity, with single-class only, and discuss multiclassing mechanisms later.)

Maybe looking at a different approach would help answer this?

Take a look at L5R 4th as an example. The core aspects of the game are entirely covered by skills. Each character has access to, and need of, basically all the skills that are available in the game. So when it comes to the central gameplay, all characters are able to perform on the same level.

Beyond that, each character has received training in a school. A school will span the equivalent of 5 levels and will unlock new special abilities, spells and so on at each level. What a, say, Miromoto Taoist Swordsman can do and what a Void Oracle can do are each entirely unique and can't be compared.

Point being that this approach manages to keep characters at once viable at each level, with schools not able to infringe upon each other.

[NigelWalmsley]

Enjoying a thing that is broken is not the same as enjoying the fact that it's broken.

Got it in one. At least for me personally, the reason I like 3e isn't because it's broken, it's because it does stuff other editions of D&D don't try to do. If you produced something that had the same kind of high level play or diversity of characters 3e allows, but wasn't broken or imbalanced, I would prefer that game immensely.


there's the catch. the only way to remove brokenness is to remove options.

That's at once trivially true and trivially false. On the one hand, every broken thing is in fact an option, and if you made the game not broken by not including those things, there would definitionally be less options. On the other hand, it's not like 3e has the maximal possible number of options. Imagine that you took the PHB and you replaced the Monk with the Warblade. The Warblade is closer to the average power level than the Monk is, so the game is less imbalanced. But you have exactly the same number of options.


the same goes for a gaming system. if you have enough variety, a skilled player will find a way to break something.

That doesn't mean that it's variety is causing things to be broken. More complicated systems are harder to balance, but that doesn't mean that they're not worth balancing. Consider a basic example like Monks not being proficient with unarmed strikes, or drown healing. Those things are obviously stupid. To my knowledge, no one at an actual table has ever demanded that the Monk take his -4 penalty on attack rolls when punching people. The game would be obviously and trivially better if you removed it entirely. So why not do that?


just like if an incompetent chemist blows up his lab we don't blame the lab, we blame him,

I'm not a lawyer, but as I understand it, companies are in fact liable for industrial accidents caused by their employees. So in this metaphor, the lab (game developers) should in fact be trying to make sure the chemists (players) can't cause problems for themselves. Obviously that's not the only goal, but it is in fact a goal. Problems can have more than one cause, and it seems like many TTRPG players have a bizarre form of Stockholm Syndrome where they're so used to routing around broken systems that they can't imagine not having to do that.


If we decoupled level, but changed how much XP a class needed to level up, could we couple XP totals such that the classes are balanced based on XP totals? (We can start, for simplicity, with single-class only, and discuss multiclassing mechanisms later.)

If you can do that, why not just balance them by level? If a 7th level Wizard and a 12th level Fighter are balanced, why not just change the Fighter progression?

[Morty]

you can't possibly fix balance without drastically reducing customization.


What options would actually be removed in a more balanced game? You've made this claim, then avoided explaining it with some rather far-fetched analogies. Balance generally improves variety, because you don't need to worry your character concept isn't up to snuff.

[Blue Jay]

In a way, I agree with King of Nowhere. I'm not the most experienced player or DM, but in my experience, serious balance issues don't seem to come up nearly as frequently most people on this forum think they do. From what I've seen, while most players are power-gamers, the majority don't seem overly interested in the kind of high-end optimization that's more likely to create balance gaps, and I also haven't seen many cases where lower-end optimizers fall so far behind that they're effectively obsolete.

Granted, most of the people who play 3.x anymore tend to be competent optimizers, so the optimization floor isn't usually a major worry. And I tend to be pretty lenient and accommodating as a DM, so I suppose that mutes the consequences of weak builds. But overall, it doesn't seem terribly difficult to get the majority of players to buy in to a gentlemen's agreement, and the whole process seems to be pretty self-correcting in the long run.

I'm not saying that there are no balance issues in the system's mechanics: I'm just saying that the problem doesn't seem as severe to me as this forum thinks it is. The game mechanics seem to create only a small fraction of the problems that toxic players and out-of-character drama causes. So, while I agree with the sentiment of trying to "fix" the system, I think the problems are way overblown.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

On the one hand, I agree that people can worry too much about high-op broken tricks when they may not cause a problem at a particular table. On the other hand, I strongly disagree with the central point of the thread:

you can't possibly fix balance without drastically reducing customization.You certainly can, by improving the viability of bad options. That won't get you to 100% balance, but it does increase both balance and options.

[Mechalich]

You certainly can, by improving the viability of bad options. That won't get you to 100% balance, but it does increase both balance and options.

And this has been done. Pathfinder increased the viability of the Fighter. Not enough to match a Tier I caster of course, but enough to hang around on viably alongside Tier III casters for most of the leveling progression. And I don't think anyone would claim that Pathfinder has fewer options than 3.5e.

[Lord Raziere]

Man guys, I do so love Bethesda's Dungeons and Dragons game. Its so not broken especially if you install mods to upgrade it. I personally recommend the Spheres of Champions and Path of War mods, and the Pathfinder mod but that one is especially extensive overhaul and doesn't play well with the base game, but just like Skyrim its a 100% balanced game with no exploits at all, It Just Works guys, It Just Works, I just can't over the genius of Bethesda to make this 100% balanced game so that we can all be inspired to make mods for it to be even more balanced at 110%.

like I just love how there is this little known mod known as Fool's Errand discipline, really buffs physical combat after all those DLCs focusing on nothing but adding spells, really makes it 120% balanced. along with the even more obscure mod, the Malefex so underrated even though it makes things 130% balanced. and I'm sure there are other mods out there that can make it 140 or 150% balanced, just so inspiring.

Of course shout out to Final Fantasy D20, quite the extensive fangame using Bethesda's Dungeon and Dragons engine, 200% balanced. remarkable feat of dnd 3.5 inspiring fans to make it even better, It Just Works: DnD 3.5 made intentionally 100% balanced in a way that makes other people produce mods that achieve levels of previously never before seen pinnacles of balance when added on, raising the bar of balance everywhere. There is just so much balanced, guys. Its off the charts, we might even see 300% balance in our lifetimes its crazy.

Thank you Bethesda for making Dnd 3.5 perfectly balanced as all things should be knowing that it will Just Work, because it does.

Sorry I just had to make this joke, I got nothing else

[Florian]

Got it in one. At least for me personally, the reason I like 3e isn't because it's broken, it's because it does stuff other editions of D&D don't try to do. If you produced something that had the same kind of high level play or diversity of characters 3e allows, but wasn't broken or imbalanced, I would prefer that game immensely.

Basically, D&D managed to paint itself into a corner. I think that one started with the initial 3E and continued onward from there on - the believe that the core identity of D&D is the combination of class and levels. Consider that while pre-3E also had class and levels, it had different EXP requirements based on the apparent worth of a level on a class. IIRC, the same amount of XP needed to level up a Wiz from 1 to 2 was sufficient to level up a Thief from 1 to 4....

So sticking with the core concept of taking a base class and stretching it over a fixed amount of levels leaves you very little choices:
1) You accept it to be unbalanced. What class A and B get over those 20 levels varies wildly in quality/power.
2) You intentionally keep classes on the same power level at each class level.

Now contrast 4E with a 4E derivate, Shadow of the Demon Lord:
4E went for option (2), but chose to stick to the "martial power level" as the default.

Shadow went the other way around. A character begins in one of the for basic classes (Fighter, Rogue, Priest, Wizard), advances to expert classes (Paladin, Sorcerer and so on), above that, it is only magic speciality classes (Abjurerer, Invoker and so on).

Shadow is both honest and up front with it. Magic = power and advancement in power = magic.

Edit and afterthoughts:

I don´t find it all too curious that besides Paizo, no other publisher tried something similar to 3E.

First, there's this huge legacy from AD&D 1st and 2nd. TSR didn't have a serious problem with adding more and more stuff to their system, as it was less complex, fewer moving parts, therefore not as likely to break down.

In a sense, same with the glorious mess that is Rifts, I don't think we will see such things again.

[NigelWalmsley]

What options would actually be removed in a more balanced game? You've made this claim, then avoided explaining it with some rather far-fetched analogies. Balance generally improves variety, because you don't need to worry your character concept isn't up to snuff.

This is an important point. It doesn't just matter what options exist, it matters what options are viable. If there's a Lightning Mage subclass, but taking it actively makes your character less effective than remaining a generic Mage, it's not unreasonable to argue that Lightning Mage is not an option the system supports.


In a way, I agree with King of Nowhere. I'm not the most experienced player or DM, but in my experience, serious balance issues don't seem to come up nearly as frequently most people on this forum think they do.

A lot of the costs of a broken system are invisible, or at least hard to notice directly. In my experience, most tables put a lot of effort into implicit or explicit houserules and gentleman's agreements that try to lock off the broken parts of the system. That's a real cost, but one that people tend not to notice a lot of the time. Working with a broken system also constrains the kinds of stories you can tell. The fact that the Fighter doesn't have any non-combat options means that groups have to avoid the kind of involved non-combat encounters that might be compelling to the kind of Wizard who picks up Scrying, Fabricate, and Teleport. That's a real cost, but because it comes in the form of something you didn't do, it's something that a lot of people don't notice.

There's also the reality that TTRPGs are incredibly robust, because the goal is to have fun with your friends, and rules that get in the way of that will simply be ignored. That doesn't mean that rules can't be better or worse, but it does mean that you can have a lot of fun even with rules that are very bad. Generally speaking, if you give a gaming group something that looks like a TTRPG ruleset, they will play it and have fun, even if the rules as written do not function or do not even exist. That doesn't mean bad rules aren't bad, it just means that rules aren't very necessary to have fun while doing cooperative storytelling. Which is perhaps obvious, given the existence of games like Munchausen.

[D+1]

For me E6 cures 3E's ills.

[Glaurung]

I'm not saying that there are no balance issues in the system's mechanics: I'm just saying that the problem doesn't seem as severe to me as this forum thinks it is.

Blue Jay summed up my experience perfectly. My friends and I have tried 4th, occasionally play 5th (usually when DM prep time is an issue), but we are drawn back to 3.5/Pathfinder 1 in the end. Our most memorable adventures and characters have benefited on the whole from the breadth of customization.

[Zanos]

The main reason I consider 3.X to be broken is the design goals.

As far as I know, 3.X was supposed to be balanced. The game operates under the assumption that a Wizard 11 is equal to a Fighter 11-not in ALL ways, but generally. That's just... Not true. Not true at all. Not even close.
I won't pretend like the 3.5 designers would foresee the next 2 decades of deconstruction done on their game, but this largely isn't true...not even close. Wizards as played and fighters as played are closer than most people on these forums could ever imagine is possible in real games.


In terms of a balanced game, that you can sit down with friends, pick cool, thematic options and have a grand ol' time... It fails miserably.
You can do that, though? 3.5 was popular for a reason.


In a way, I agree with King of Nowhere. I'm not the most experienced player or DM, but in my experience, serious balance issues don't seem to come up nearly as frequently most people on this forum think they do. From what I've seen, while most players are power-gamers, the majority don't seem overly interested in the kind of high-end optimization that's more likely to create balance gaps, and I also haven't seen many cases where lower-end optimizers fall so far behind that they're effectively obsolete.

Granted, most of the people who play 3.x anymore tend to be competent optimizers, so the optimization floor isn't usually a major worry. And I tend to be pretty lenient and accommodating as a DM, so I suppose that mutes the consequences of weak builds. But overall, it doesn't seem terribly difficult to get the majority of players to buy in to a gentlemen's agreement, and the whole process seems to be pretty self-correcting in the long run.

I'm not saying that there are no balance issues in the system's mechanics: I'm just saying that the problem doesn't seem as severe to me as this forum thinks it is. The game mechanics seem to create only a small fraction of the problems that toxic players and out-of-character drama causes. So, while I agree with the sentiment of trying to "fix" the system, I think the problems are way overblown.
Again, I won't act like 3.5 is some ascended mental creation of people who predicted 2 decades worth of problems with their system and secretly baked in a bunch of 5th dimensional TTRPG concepts about how the game suits all tables of various optimization and how being broken is the only true way to achieve balance. But optimization circles vastly overblow how broken the game is. It works fine most of the time for most people.

[Florian]

I won't pretend like the 3.5 designers would foresee the next 2 decades of deconstruction done on their game, but this largely isn't true...not even close. Wizards as played and fighters as played are closer than most people on these forums could ever imagine is possible in real games.

Oh, I fully agree with you there. I've gm´ed nearly each Paizo AP with mixed groups of newbies and veterans to the game and rarely came across serious problems. Still, some game sessions came close to the breaking point.

Ok, let's see if I can manage to explain that in an understandable way.

There're basically two modes of play here. The first in on the tactical level, the second on the strategic level. Playing on the tactical level is a fun and balanced experience more often than not. It´s the strategic level that proves to be troublesome because it is more or less nonexistent beyond spells and certain items. This is also when "Fighter vs. Wizard" comes into it, not because of the classes per se, but because they showcase how lopsided the distribution of strategic abilities is. The breaking point then is, when someone, either intentionally or by accident, uses the strategic level as leverage/infringes on the tactical level.

[King of Nowhere]

Something that has to be fixed by the users before working as intended sounds pretty broken though, doesn't it? If you bought a car and had to spend hours tinkering with it before it worked as advertised, I'd say you'd bought a broken car, though not necessarily an irreirreparably broken one.

i don't know about cars, but i know some people prefer to buy their computers disassembled and put them together themselves; because this way they can pick all the specific pieces they want, rather than be handed down a premade. at least this happened some years ago, with increased complexity maybe it went down. i also know bike and motorbike experts who buy separate pieces and tinker with them.
d&d is not a car. if it were a car, it would indeed be defective. d&d is better considered a bunch of spare pieces, that allow you to assemble your own car


Got it in one. At least for me personally, the reason I like 3e isn't because it's broken, it's because it does stuff other editions of D&D don't try to do. If you produced something that had the same kind of high level play or diversity of characters 3e allows, but wasn't broken or imbalanced, I would prefer that game immensely.


the core of my argument is that this is impossible. any system that's sufficiently complex will produce unforseen interactions.



That doesn't mean that it's variety is causing things to be broken. More complicated systems are harder to balance, but that doesn't mean that they're not worth balancing. Consider a basic example like Monks not being proficient with unarmed strikes, or drown healing.

that's not what i'm talking about when i say broken. those are bugs in the rules, or perhaps things that were always intended to be taken with a grain of salt - actually, i believe all the rules were supposed to be taken with a grain of salt. is there really any need to write that a creature is always proficient with its own natural weapons?
anyway, nobody tries to take those issues seriuously at a gaming table, and they don't cause the slightest problem.
i'm referring to the wide power disparities between classes and builds.


What options would actually be removed in a more balanced game? You've made this claim, then avoided explaining it with some rather far-fetched analogies. Balance generally improves variety, because you don't need to worry your character concept isn't up to snuff.

if all the builds had the same power, then there would be only one power level to choose. this is less options than being able to choose multiple power levels. even if you only limit yourself to removing the most broken options, still you are removing options. and some people liked them.
some people like to be a demigod already by level 10. some people like to struggle against a foe of equal CR. you can't cater to both players without allowing different power levels to exhist.


This is an important point. It doesn't just matter what options exist, it matters what options are viable. If there's a Lightning Mage subclass, but taking it actively makes your character less effective than remaining a generic Mage, it's not unreasonable to argue that Lightning Mage is not an option the system supports.


the system supports the choice if you are aiming for a lower powered build. especially when playing a caster, you have to limit your own power



A lot of the costs of a broken system are invisible, or at least hard to notice directly. In my experience, most tables put a lot of effort into implicit or explicit houserules and gentleman's agreements that try to lock off the broken parts of the system. That's a real cost, but one that people tend not to notice a lot of the time.
i spoke about that cost. what i argue is that this is not a cost to fix the system, but rather an investment you make to pick your own flavor of the system.

[Batcathat]

i don't know about cars, but i know some people prefer to buy their computers disassembled and put them together themselves; because this way they can pick all the specific pieces they want, rather than be handed down a premade. at least this happened some years ago, with increased complexity maybe it went down. i also know bike and motorbike experts who buy separate pieces and tinker with them.
d&d is not a car. if it were a car, it would indeed be defective. d&d is better considered a bunch of spare pieces, that allow you to assemble your own car

Sure, but the people who buy computer parts separately to build a computer do so intentionally, they don't try to buy a computer and end up with a box of loose parts. D&D wasn't planned or marketed as a bunch of loose rules that you could pick and choose from to build your own reasonably balanced game but as a finished game that you could buy, learn and play as is.

[Florian]

the core of my argument is that this is impossible. any system that's sufficiently complex will produce unforseen interactions.

I´m not convinced.

You have two components here, the individual parts and the overall framework tying them together. The later works independent of the actual parts, the former do not, no matter what kind of interaction they produce.

Let´s be a bit abstract there and declare that we understand the design goal of "Balance" in the way of "equal coin spent, equal worth got" and also allow that system mastery means that you can find and use synergies, giving that sweet "worth+".

A simple thought experiment: For symmetries sake, let's expand the initial framework to 21 levels, but keep classes to 7 levels, within 3 tiers. Let´s also be frank about it, "powered" abilities beat "always on" abilities by a mike and they are always magic in nature.

First tier consists of 4 classes, clumped into two main categories: Extremely strong tactical powers (Martial: Fighter, Magic: Cleric) and extremely strong strait powers (Martial: Rogue, Magic: Thief).

This initial setup gives me abilities that will affect everything else to come and can't be replicated in one way or the other.

Second tier consists of as many classes we can come up with (Paladin, Bard, Rage Mage, Battlemage...). They are all "hybrid", with equal measure of Martial/Magic, main difference being the distribution ab Tactical and Strategic powers.

Third tier is wholly magic, as many classes as the number of schools of magic we cared to establish (Abjurer, Necromancer...). Again, the main difference is the distribution of T/S powers.

For the sake of argument, let's make "extreme" really extreme:
- Only Fighter gain interactive actions. Not attacks, actions.
- Clerics can ever only know one spell per level, but infinitive uses.
- Only Rogues have skills.
- Wizards know all spells, but can only use one per hour.

Tier 2 and 3 either enhance or soften that up a bit, up to choice.

Now we still have a lot of individual parts you can chose from and a lot that can be used to customize a character, but the separation into three tiers make for a more robust framework.

[I3igAl]

I think there are different kinds of brokenness. Ironically the less broken stuff is often worse in praxis, while the more broken stuff is only bad in theory.

Wishes and abusing Planar Ally to spam infinite wishes for example is such a blatant abuse, that it will never be allowed at a table, unless said table wants to break the game on purpose. The same thing goes for creating a little army of Simulacra and similar super broken stuff.
These options while imbalanced end up mostly as great roleplay moments and make you feel powerful, but they will not break the game unless players and GM both really want to.

There are less broken options, which are more damaging though. A core druid will likely Wildshape regularily and even without minmaxing will end up in a lot of forms stronger than the fighter. This one is truly bad, because one option massively outshines the other and it is basically impossible to play a druid, who doesn't make the fighter obsolete.
-----------------------------------------
So personally I don't mind the brokeness, if it offer cool rp-options. I do mind it, when it basically blocks other options.

[Asmotherion]

By level 17, I can design a PC that is:

-Immune to all damage sources that are not specifically designed for bypassing immunities, including non-lethal, all elemental types, positive and negative energy (healed by one, imune to the other) and (magical) Piercing, Slashing, Blugeoning.

-A ton of temporary HP.

-Immune to the following schools: Illusion, Enchantment, Divination, and virtually imune to Evocation (through sky-high Spell Resistance; most evocation spells are SR:yes) and Necromancy (Through imunity to Death Effects, Ability damage, etc).

-Immune to Nonlethal, Death Effects, Ability Damage (thus, most non-animation Necromancy spells), Poison, Desease.

-Has the ability to Spam Wish an indefinite amount of times (aka access to all spells, at will).

-Can take any form they want, and shift between them as a free action every turn.

-Always goes first on the initiative order. Can stop time for 24 hours, reshaping the entire battlefield and regain all spell slots in the meanwhile.

-Have every attack they perform resolve as a touch attack. Ofcourse wile maintaining full bab.

-Have an average of +50 on all saving throws.

-Reroll any natural 1 they roll.

-Have unlimited resources of gold and magical items.

-Planar bound army.

-Have all spells they cast be considered at least 1 level higher, without using a higher level spell slot.

-Have aproximatelly -12 metamagic reducers active at all time.

-First time he's about to die, he gets healed back to full HP. Seccond time, he gets a free resurection.

-Ignores AMFs and Recreates Magic in Dead Magic Zones.

-Can bestow up to 24 negative levels in a single turn.

-Can deal infinite loops of infinite damage in a single turn.

-Can go from Level 1 to X (which is any level you want to) in less than a session.

-Can have a limitless amount of Crafting XP, and/or ensure he recovers the ressurection level loss.

-Can have a series of clones in a series of Demiplanes of his own creation, becoming effectivelly immortal.

-Do I even need to continue?
...

So, yeah, tell me again how 3.5 is not broken?

Sure, it's still fun to play, but I seriously doubt the designers envisioned a Party of Omnipotent PCs, or intended for this.

Do I find it fun to play top optimisation? I sure do. Do I think it's not broken? Not even remotelly, 3.5 is the textbook definition of a broken tabletop RPG system, at least by following strict RAW without homebrew rules.

[SirNibbles]

Though I don't think power balance is an issue, as you've explained above, there is legitimate brokenness within the rules.

For example, let's look at the balance skill. You are required to balance while on a narrow surface, which is defined as being a foot or less wide. However, it fails to take into account that sizes exist, and a tiny rat should not need to balance on a 1-foot wide surface, while a surface 2 feet wide should require a colossal hydra to balance. Additionally, no matter how slippery a surface becomes, it will not force a balance check- it can only increase the DC of an existing balance check for a surface being narrow or 'difficult'. Moving on to difficult surfaces, a hewn stone floor is defined as being a difficult surface (though only if you are running or charging). That's a pretty standard dungeon surface, but, looking at modules, nobody seems to even consider requiring a balance check to charge through every single scenario with a stone floor.

What happens if another character falls on top of you? Of course, the rules say you take damage for having something fall on you and they take damage for falling, but there are things the rules don't cover. Do they fall prone? Do you fall prone? Do you end up in the same square? If not, do they end up balancing on top of you on the square above?

There are many areas where the rules simply don't work or aren't explained well enough to have fewer than 2 or 3 interpretations of how they should be applied. Therein lies the issue, not with the fact that some characters are more powerful than others.

[Kesnit]

In a way, I agree with King of Nowhere. I'm not the most experienced player or DM, but in my experience, serious balance issues don't seem to come up nearly as frequently most people on this forum think they do.


But optimization circles vastly overblow how broken the game is. It works fine most of the time for most people.

The problems come in groups where it doesn't work.

A few years ago, I ran a 3.5 campaign with 4 players. One knew the system well enough to build viable characters. Two asked for help in getting their characters to do what they wanted. The last had no system knowledge and refused any help I offered. By the time they got to LVL 7, the last of those PCs was clearly dragging the party down. By the time they got to 9, he was completely ineffective in almost anything he did. My other players were asking me to give that PC custom items that would make him effective, but he would not take them. (He asked if he could have something else instead, which would not have given him the help he needed.)

These were not high optimization PCs. (Warlock, Barbarian/Fighter, and Cloistered Cleric focusing on BFC and buff the party/debuff the enemies*.) But he was dragging down the game for everyone - including me - because he was so out of balance with the rest of the party.





* I know this is often considered high optimization, but since the focus was making everything easier for the party and not "make me better at everything," I do not consider the PC a CoDzilla.

[Florian]

The problems come in groups where it doesn't work.

Counter example: Some years back, a good friend of mine asked me to join a lengthy campaign, otherwise composed of entirely newcomers, which I was to shepherd in some way. I knew that particular campaign, having GM´ed it twice before.

What followed was three boring years of biweekly sessions for me. The newbies were doing alright, all of them having some solid and functional builds, while I used a rather extreme powerhouse build that I only got small fraction of because I knew that supporting them was my job. It was only when they botched that I got to go all-in and do what my build was capable off.

Something to learn here about power levels, builds and such.

[Morty]

if all the builds had the same power, then there would be only one power level to choose. this is less options than being able to choose multiple power levels. even if you only limit yourself to removing the most broken options, still you are removing options. and some people liked them.
some people like to be a demigod already by level 10. some people like to struggle against a foe of equal CR. you can't cater to both players without allowing different power levels to exhist.


Yes, you can. It's absolutely possible. It's been done. E6 is a dirt-simple method of achieving this kind of thing in 3E with minimal houserules. Other systems have more robust ways to adjust competence of power of player characters regardless of their mechanical advancement. "Imbalance is good because it allows for different power levels" is a pretty weak post-fact justification.

[NigelWalmsley]

the core of my argument is that this is impossible. any system that's sufficiently complex will produce unforseen interactions.

It's impossible to write truly bug-free software. That doesn't mean we don't report bugs we see, fix bugs we find, or want software to have less bugs. We do all of those things because we understand that just because a goal is difficult or even impossible to reach doesn't mean it is not a worthwhile goal.


that's not what i'm talking about when i say broken. those are bugs in the rules, or perhaps things that were always intended to be taken with a grain of salt

I would argue that the difference between those issues and ones like "the Monk sucks" is one of degree rather than kind. Just as you are not supposed to heal by drowning, the Monk is not supposed to suck.


if all the builds had the same power, then there would be only one power level to choose.

No, there would be twenty power levels to choose from. Because there are twenty actual levels. Level works fine as a mechanism for adjusting power. That is, in fact, what it is for.


some people like to struggle against a foe of equal CR.

People might like to struggle, but I flatly refuse to believe that there is a single person in the world who cares whether the monster their 8th level PC is struggling with has an "8" or a "10" as its CR entry.


i spoke about that cost. what i argue is that this is not a cost to fix the system, but rather an investment you make to pick your own flavor of the system.

That's a distinction without a difference.

[Blue Jay]

the core of my argument is that this is impossible. any system that's sufficiently complex will produce unforseen interactions.

While I agree with your sentiment to some extent, I think you're overstating your case. I agree that there's something of a trade-off between complexity and balance: a linear increase in complexity will cause a geometric increase in the difficulty of maintaining balance. At some point, a law of diminishing returns is likely to take over, where the designers will have to decide whether complexity or balance is more important to them.

But, I'm not sure that entirely applies to 3.5e, because the common perception is that many of the worst imbalances are in the core rulebooks; so it wasn't the glut of material that caused the imbalances and glitches, but the actual fundamentals of the system.

I'm still sort of on the fence in some ways. Could the system be better balanced? Sure. But, should balance be a major design priority? That, I'm less convinced of. As Nigel said upthread, tabletop games are generally quite robust in the face of mechanical glitches and imbalances, because mechanical perfection is not actually the end goal. Why should a company invest heavily in creating perfectly seamless mechanics when it takes a fair amount of investment to fix the flaws that the genre is mostly robust to anyway? So, I'm uncomfortable with the way this forum so readily --- even eagerly --- ascribes mechanical flaws to designer incompetence: the rules are "bad" or "broken" because people can abuse them, even if the vast majority of people don't abuse them and don't even want to abuse them.

To me, it mostly just looks like controlling the shenanigans of munchkins was a lower priority for the game designers than providing a wealth of options for people who play in good faith. And I don't view that as a failure on the designers' part: those seem like basically good priorities to me, and I'm rather glad they didn't over-invest in trying to make everything "balanced" to a central standard.


It's impossible to write truly bug-free software. That doesn't mean we don't report bugs we see, fix bugs we find, or want software to have less bugs. We do all of those things because we understand that just because a goal is difficult or even impossible to reach doesn't mean it is not a worthwhile goal.

I think the comparison with software is of limited relevance, because in many ways, the strength of a tabletop game is precisely that it's not a video game. Video games excel in a design space where highly-tuned controls and precise mechanics are absolutely integral to the experience. Tabletop games are generally an inferior medium for simulating that kind of experience; but where tabletop games really excel is in a design space that's much more human, where creative freedom is just as integral to the experience as (or maybe even more integral than) the mechanical precision of the rules. In a design space like that, glitchy rules are way less problematic than in a more video-game-like design space.

[NigelWalmsley]

The argument that TTRPGs are social and therefore the rules don't matter has always struck me as a little odd. True, you can route around non-functional rules fairly easily. But at no point is that an argument for non-functional rules. It's purely defensive. Moreover, while social elements may be more important to your experience than mechanical ones, there's nothing the game can do to make your group dynamic better. It may be that the reason your D&D group is great is because your DM is really good at designing adventures, not because the mechanics are particularly strong. It probably even is. But the only thing the designers can effect is the mechanics.

[Florian]

The argument that TTRPGs are social and therefore the rules don't matter has always struck me as a little odd. True, you can route around non-functional rules fairly easily. But at no point is that an argument for non-functional rules. It's purely defensive. Moreover, while social elements may be more important to your experience than mechanical ones, there's nothing the game can do to make your group dynamic better. It may be that the reason your D&D group is great is because your DM is really good at designing adventures, not because the mechanics are particularly strong. It probably even is. But the only thing the designers can effect is the mechanics.

The argument is that we have two different sets of rules: The first is how we play the game, which is the important one. The second is how we facilitate the game, that is stuff like the rule system we use, which is of lesser importance.

Consider this: If we agree on playing the, say, Jade Regent campaign using the PF1 rules, that comes along with a lot of implicit stuff that is agreed on by the side, like, for example, this not being a sandbox and players are not intended to do whatever they want, but stick to Jade Regent.

[King of Nowhere]

Sure, but the people who buy computer parts separately to build a computer do so intentionally, they don't try to buy a computer and end up with a box of loose parts. D&D wasn't planned or marketed as a bunch of loose rules that you could pick and choose from to build your own reasonably balanced game but as a finished game that you could buy, learn and play as is.

ok. i agree that the people who designed it and marketed it didn't do a good job of it. but now we're long past this phase. nobody is trying to sell 3.x anymore, it's all free on the srd. so, you can think of 3.x as a game that does not work, or you could think of it as a workshop that can give what you are looking for. i prefer the second approach.

The problems come in groups where it doesn't work.

A few years ago, I ran a 3.5 campaign with 4 players. One knew the system well enough to build viable characters. Two asked for help in getting their characters to do what they wanted. The last had no system knowledge and refused any help I offered. By the time they got to LVL 7, the last of those PCs was clearly dragging the party down. By the time they got to 9, he was completely ineffective in almost anything he did. My other players were asking me to give that PC custom items that would make him effective, but he would not take them. (He asked if he could have something else instead, which would not have given him the help he needed.)

was the guy complaining because he was ineffective? then he was the problem, since he kept refusing help.
was nobody complaining? then things are fine.
in my group there is a guy that's much less effectrive than everyone else, and we offered to help him many times - we did help him achieve a modicum of competence. but he said he is happy as he is, so there's no problem.


Yes, you can. It's absolutely possible. It's been done. E6 is a dirt-simple method of achieving this kind of thing in 3E with minimal houserules.
but you are probing my point: you can tinker with 3.x to get what you want. in this case, you want a low-power game where casters do not reach ridiculous power levels? you have the solution. the 3.x workshop contains the tools to build what you want. but it also contains the tools to play a party of high-op tier 1. you just have to decide which tools you want to use

By level 17, I can design a PC that is:

-Immune to all damage sources that are not specifically designed for bypassing immunities, including non-lethal, all elemental types, positive and negative energy (healed by one, imune to the other) and (magical) Piercing, Slashing, Blugeoning.

-A ton of temporary HP.

-Immune to the following schools: Illusion, Enchantment, Divination, and virtually imune to Evocation (through sky-high Spell Resistance; most evocation spells are SR:yes) and Necromancy (Through imunity to Death Effects, Ability damage, etc).

-Immune to Nonlethal, Death Effects, Ability Damage (thus, most non-animation Necromancy spells), Poison, Desease.

-Has the ability to Spam Wish an indefinite amount of times (aka access to all spells, at will).

-Can take any form they want, and shift between them as a free action every turn.

-Always goes first on the initiative order. Can stop time for 24 hours, reshaping the entire battlefield and regain all spell slots in the meanwhile.

-Have every attack they perform resolve as a touch attack. Ofcourse wile maintaining full bab.

-Have an average of +50 on all saving throws.

-Reroll any natural 1 they roll.

-Have unlimited resources of gold and magical items.

-Planar bound army.

-Have all spells they cast be considered at least 1 level higher, without using a higher level spell slot.

-Have aproximatelly -12 metamagic reducers active at all time.

-First time he's about to die, he gets healed back to full HP. Seccond time, he gets a free resurection.

-Ignores AMFs and Recreates Magic in Dead Magic Zones.

-Can bestow up to 24 negative levels in a single turn.

-Can deal infinite loops of infinite damage in a single turn.

-Can go from Level 1 to X (which is any level you want to) in less than a session.

-Can have a limitless amount of Crafting XP, and/or ensure he recovers the ressurection level loss.

-Can have a series of clones in a series of Demiplanes of his own creation, becoming effectivelly immortal.

-Do I even need to continue?
...

So, yeah, tell me again how 3.5 is not broken?

Sure, it's still fun to play, but I seriously doubt the designers envisioned a Party of Omnipotent PCs, or intended for this.

Do I find it fun to play top optimisation? I sure do. Do I think it's not broken? Not even remotelly, 3.5 is the textbook definition of a broken tabletop RPG system, at least by following strict RAW without homebrew rules.
you also prove my point. so, within the same rules framework, morty can choose to play a low power gritty heroic fantasy, and asmotherion can decide to play a demigod. of course, this needs that everyone agrees to keep the power level consistent within the party.
give me a "balanced" system where you can still decide to play both.

[JNAProductions]

you also prove my point. so, within the same rules framework, morty can choose to play a low power gritty heroic fantasy, and asmotherion can decide to play a demigod. of course, this needs that everyone agrees to keep the power level consistent within the party.
give me a "balanced" system where you can still decide to play both.

Sure. Mutants and Masterminds.

For the gritty, heroic fantasy, make very low PL characters.
For the gods among men, give them a ludicrously high PL.

That's the thing-there's supposed to be a measure of how powerful a PC is. And it's called level.

[Twurps]

Couldn't agree more with the OP.

I love this game for it's complexities, it's many options and actually for it's imbalance.
Even if the argument that more options inherently brings more imbalance doesn't hold up: when given the choice between a 'balanced' and an 'unbalanced' system, I'd go for the unbalanced one. I don't want more options for the sake of more options, I want the options to matter. I want them to matter flavor wise, and I want them to matter power wise.

And yes, I could use those options to 'break' the game. I could also use them to put my character at the same effective power level as that of my friends, despite my greater/lesser system mastery and/or greater/lesser tactical cunning. I chose to use if for the latter.

I play chess at a decent enough level (not even close to good, but substantially better than any of my friends), and let me tell you. Once you have 'system mastery' of that game, forget about enjoying that game with any friend that doesn't have the same mastery. I've never had that issue with d&d3.5.

[NigelWalmsley]

you can think of 3.x as a game that does not work, or you could think of it as a workshop that can give what you are looking for. i prefer the second approach.

That's a strawman. No one is saying 3e doesn't work, they are saying it could be improved.


was nobody complaining? then things are fine.

Not necessarily. Just because someone isn't complaining doesn't mean they aren't upset. It certainly doesn't mean they couldn't be happier.


give me a "balanced" system where you can still decide to play both.

Well there's this neat thing called "character levels" that allow you to progress from being pretty weak to being very strong. If you happen to like some specific point on that spectrum, you can just play at that point and not at other points.

[KoDT69]

Regardless of what anybody says, including WotC themselves, when 3.0 was conceived, their primary concern and design goal was to simplify progressions with easy formulas, get rid of negative numbers, and unify the party levels to appeal to newer players. They may have gave som attempt at balance, but streamlining experience points/level progression was counterproductive to the AD&D style that was had a lot more thought behind it than people are willing to admit for some reason. Sure, it's easier the streamlined way they went with but not more balanced in the least.
Now the core of the argument... You can't balance a fighter to a wizard. Magic is better than no magic no matter how you spin it. You can still build a fighter capable of contributing and have fun playing. Doesn't matter if you admit to agreeing or disagreeing with this. Any system where there is magic and no magic is either going to lack options, have weak magic, or suffer imbalance issues.
Some of you are saying "it's broke because we HAVE to houserule stuff". I call BS. You don't HAVE to you PREFER to, to get a certain type of game experience and that's fine but be honest about it. Even if it were highly regarded as 100% balanced, most people would still have house rules anyway. Rule zero has been around from the start because Gygax knew every group would have different ideas.
I'm also going to call BS on people saying all the unbalance was in core. The very essence of the WotC game design, and quite frankly their business demand for regular new material, took an obvious bias toward Wizards. Why? Because everyone will buy books with more magic spells and powers! I mean, we got one Arms and Equipment Guide and 80+ splatbooks with spells and PrC's. Magic power creep was not only inevitable but accelerated to sell books. I have no issue with it as you don't have to allow every book at every table. But being 100% pragmatic here, you know when making new stuff the process went as such:

Dev 1 - Wizards can solve like 70% of problems with a single spell. Good thing some creatures have Spell Resistance!
Dev 2 - Yo! You're right! I bet the players would go nuts if we put up some new spells that bypass SR!
Boss - WHAT ARE YOU WAITING FOR GET ME 12 WIZARD SPELLS THAT BYPASS SR! Oh maybe a few Cleric buffs or something too!
- Book 1 - sells well
Boss - Guys that book sold pretty good. How about we find a couple more situations the Wizard can't one spell solve, and get a couple more new spells and some sick PrC powers?
Dev 1 - You know I like rogues so -
Troll Dev - Hey guys I just wrote up Celerity and Planar Shepard LOLZ!!!
Dev 2 - I think if you pretend to not know what you just did it will hit print ;)
Boss - HOW DO YOU GUYS KEEP UPPING YOUR GAME? GENIUS!

[Zanos]

Dev 1 - Wizards can solve like 70% of problems with a single spell. Good thing some creatures have Spell Resistance!
Dev 2 - Yo! You're right! I bet the players would go nuts if we put up some new spells that bypass SR!
Boss - WHAT ARE YOU WAITING FOR GET ME 12 WIZARD SPELLS THAT BYPASS SR! Oh maybe a few Cleric buffs or something too!
- Book 1 - sells well
Boss - Guys that book sold pretty good. How about we find a couple more situations the Wizard can't one spell solve, and get a couple more new spells and some sick PrC powers?
Dev 1 - You know I like rogues so -
Troll Dev - Hey guys I just wrote up Celerity and Planar Shepard LOLZ!!!
Dev 2 - I think if you pretend to not know what you just did it will hit print ;)
Boss - HOW DO YOU GUYS KEEP UPPING YOUR GAME? GENIUS!
While I agree that WotC definitely made more books that sold, and people wanted new stuff to use, I wouldn't describe the spells in new books as power creep. The most fundamentally broken spells are all in core(planar binding, shapechange, polymorph, haste, greater invisiblity, fly, wish, solid fog, black tentacles, sleep, color spray, etc. etc.) If anything most of the splatbooks are more friendly to martial characters, with substantial expansion to fighter bonus feat options, ACFs that make many martial classes radically better, some new mundane equipment in a couple of books, particularly dungeonscape and complete adventurer, and a lot of prestige class options for non-casters, and the entirety of tome of battle. The fact is martial characters compete better with spellcasters outside of core than within it.

[Batcathat]

ok. i agree that the people who designed it and marketed it didn't do a good job of it. but now we're long past this phase. nobody is trying to sell 3.x anymore, it's all free on the srd. so, you can think of 3.x as a game that does not work, or you could think of it as a workshop that can give what you are looking for. i prefer the second approach.

The game containing useful parts and the game being broken isn't mutually exclusive. To return to my car analogy, a broken car can still have lots of useful parts that a mechanic can use to fix or build another car but it's still a broken car.

It feels like your main issue is with the term "broken". No one's saying that the game isn't playable or fun – just that it doesn't work as intended.

[Morty]

but you are probing my point: you can tinker with 3.x to get what you want. in this case, you want a low-power game where casters do not reach ridiculous power levels? you have the solution. the 3.x workshop contains the tools to build what you want. but it also contains the tools to play a party of high-op tier 1. you just have to decide which tools you want to use


No, the workshop doesn't contain those tools. The players bring those tools in to patch up the system's flaws. It's just that at some point, they started pretending those tools have always been there.

Describing 3E as a "toolbox" or "workshop" is pretty silly, anyway - like all other editions of D&D, it's very restrictive and focused. Not as much as some systems, but up there. Claiming it's versatile is just how people justify sticking to it, when the real reason is "it's familiar and we don't want to change things". Which is a fair reason, just be honest about it.

[AntiAuthority]

Now the core of the argument... You can't balance a fighter to a wizard. Magic is better than no magic no matter how you spin it. You can still build a fighter capable of contributing and have fun playing. Doesn't matter if you admit to agreeing or disagreeing with this. Any system where there is magic and no magic is either going to lack options, have weak magic, or suffer imbalance issues.


These aren't really true though. Magic and non-magic don't need to be stronger or weaker than each other, both are entirely subject to the limitations of the creator(s).

You could write a system where you have a god-like reality warper that waves their hands around and creates demi-planes traveling around with a strong guy (basically 3.5E/PF1E) or the inverse where you have a borderline god-like martial that can tear through space-time traveling around with someone that can make a house of cards move with their mind slightly (or they just ask you to guess their card...). This would be an either-or fallacy, which is ignoring the possibility of having "strong casters" and "strong martials" side by side. Just because the caster-type can stop time, create pocket dimensions, revive the dead, have clone bodies etc. doesn't mean they're casting weak magic/losing options if the warrior-type is tearing open holes in reality, rearranging landmasses, destroying souls and regenerating like a Troll/Hydra/what have you.

[Florian]

@AntiAuthority:

Missing the point. Once you start and divide things up as being either "mundane" or "magic", with "magic" more often than not meaning "above or beyond the mundane", then you have created a hard divide that nearly cannot be crossed.

That's a sensible approach to world building. Once you start integrating "magic" into "mundane", you'd have to give deep thoughts about how that would change in-game reality. It´s basically the foundation of Urban Fantasy: The hidden world and always with a good (?) explanation for why the world did not change in any meaningful way.

But it´s terrible when talking about the concept of "Balance", because it automatically means that such a thing cannot exist between both sides of the divide.

[Togo]

I'm definitely with King of Nowhere on this.

I don't think Balance within the rules is either possible, or particularly desirable. I would prefer to have as wide a range of options as possible.

Let's take an example. I run a murder mystery game. It involves a lot of investigation, talking to NPCs, searching for physical clues, and maybe the odd bit of divination.
I also run a game called '24 hours of death', in which the PCs are holed up in a bunker as wave after wave of enemies try and take the bunker. It involves combat, and a certain amount of psychological horror.

No game system is going to be balanced for both. It's not desirable for a game system to be balanced for both. But I can run both in 3.5


The concept of 'balance' involves assuming up front what the point or purpose of the game is, what the PCs are trying to achieve and so on. Those assumptions are unfounded, and simply represent someone's own preferred mode of play.

[AntiAuthority]

@AntiAuthority:

Missing the point. Once you start and divide things up as being either "mundane" or "magic", with "magic" more often than not meaning "above or beyond the mundane", then you have created a hard divide that nearly cannot be crossed.

That's a sensible approach to world building. Once you start integrating "magic" into "mundane", you'd have to give deep thoughts about how that would change in-game reality. It´s basically the foundation of Urban Fantasy: The hidden world and always with a good (?) explanation for why the world did not change in any meaningful way.

But it´s terrible when talking about the concept of "Balance", because it automatically means that such a thing cannot exist between both sides of the divide.

You're missing my point.

Magic, fantastic (my preference, but it's whatever), supernatural, extraordinary, impossible, whatever you want to call it... I wasn't really arguing what it should be called or not, I'm aware not everyone will agree with whatever to call it, that's not what my issue was.

My issue was with the statement "You can't balance a fighter to a wizard." My point was: You can balance a fighter (non-magic user) with a wizard (magic user), there's no reason to enforce the notion that the wizard has to be superior to a fighter, and balancing them doesn't somehow make one class lose options/powerful magic.

As an aside about the rest of your post...

As an aside, the reason I referred to non-magic and magic is because the poster I was responding to did, though to be frank... I'd prefer to call it fantastic because


It can help get rid of the belief that "only magical characters (spellcasters) can do the impossible" and hopefully steer people towards "only fantasty characters (spellcasters and non-spellcasters) can do the impossible"

It makes discussions easier in regards to determining when a character who can bench press a train loses their abilities in an anti-magic field depending on the power source of muscle/training and enchanted gear/having a spell of Super Strength placed on them

I absolutely agree with you in that there's not much reason to put up such a hard divide between magic/non-magic (the things that exist in fantasy) and mundane, I just prefer the word fantastic because the word "magic" usually evokes the idea of someone like Harry Potter with the wizarding hats, wands, spells, flying brooms and such while "fantastic" can include all those things and more, from superhuman warriors to dragons to healing weapons that were made just because someone is a good blacksmith (even if they can't cast spells). If someone could come up with a better term than magic to mean "impossible by the standards of a normal human" then go for it, but so far fantastic is the one I'm using until a better one comes along, because fantasy can include pretty much anything while magic has become near synonymous with spellcasters... Then again, I could just be misunderstanding what you mean by not dividing them between Magic and Non-Magic...

[KoDT69]

@Florian seems to have understood. @AntiAuthority my premise is no magic fighter will never equal a wizard because the 3.x system includes not only an arcane foil to just about any tactic or scenario, but more often than not they also have a superior option.
For the sake of argument, @AntiAuthority, build us a Superhuman Fighter that gets Ex and Su powers at every level. Anything from any old fantasy. I'll bet you dollars to donuts that no matter what reality ripping skills the dude has, the 3.x wizard will still have so much of an advantage that it's not worth your time trying.
Yes some live was given to martials in splatbooks, but not nearly the same as the casters. And yes there are broken spells in core. By virtue of including such classic things as Wish, Fly, Teleport... Everyone who knows the word wizard 100% expects these classics to be standard issue. By virtue of expectation alone the wizard is broken and overpowered. That is a known evil of the system. The crux of it is that if you really thought some other system was superior, you'd be discussing that, but we're all here for D&D 3.X because like it or not, it's a good system. A knowledgeable DM can basically guide a campaign to about any power level. New players can pick it up easy.

[NigelWalmsley]

It feels like your main issue is with the term "broken". No one's saying that the game isn't playable or fun – just that it doesn't work as intended.

Honestly the real claim is even weaker than that. The game may well be working as intended. The point is simply that it could work better. And I think that's fairly inarguable.


Claiming it's versatile is just how people justify sticking to it, when the real reason is "it's familiar and we don't want to change things". Which is a fair reason, just be honest about it.

3e absolutely is versatile. There's a huge range of mechanical things you can do. That's certainly not the only kind of versatility, but it is a kind of versatility, and in terms of that kind of versatility, 3e is one of the best in the business.


These aren't really true though. Magic and non-magic don't need to be stronger or weaker than each other, both are entirely subject to the limitations of the creator(s).

As always, it depends upon how we define our terms. Does magic mean "specifically the thing Wizards do" or "any supernatural effect"? Do we mean that these things are weaker or stronger in the abstract, or in any particular case? Broadly speaking, the range of imaginable supernatural effects are, by definition, both larger and stronger than the range of natural effects. However fast you can imagine a person going naturally, someone could go faster supernaturally. If, as I think is reasonable, we assume that "magic" is broadly defined, and that the game is going to proceed up to the level where you are raising the dead and traveling between planes, everyone needs to get on the magic train at some point to some degree. But if you made other assumptions about power ranges or defined magic in other ways, that would change.


No game system is going to be balanced for both. It's not desirable for a game system to be balanced for both. But I can run both in 3.5

I think that's actually a bad example. Since those games are essentially completely disjoint, designing a game system that's balanced for both is as easy as designing game systems for the two that are individually balanced, then stapling them together. The issue, insofar as it is an issue at all, arises when you have things that are relatively similar. So a 24 hour death match versus a single duel with a powerful enemy. And that is hard to balance, but 3e could certainly be closer, both in terms of practical balance in those two environments and in terms of providing better guidance about how tweaking encounters changes levels of contribution and difficulty.

[Blue Jay]

The argument that TTRPGs are social and therefore the rules don't matter has always struck me as a little odd. True, you can route around non-functional rules fairly easily. But at no point is that an argument for non-functional rules. It's purely defensive. Moreover, while social elements may be more important to your experience than mechanical ones, there's nothing the game can do to make your group dynamic better. It may be that the reason your D&D group is great is because your DM is really good at designing adventures, not because the mechanics are particularly strong. It probably even is. But the only thing the designers can effect is the mechanics.

You view things in excessively binary terms. Look at the first line in the quoted text: "TTRPGs are social and therefore the rules don't matter." Of course it sounds odd, because it's a completely inaccurate caricature of a very nuanced argument about tradeoffs in game design. And in the next couple of sentences, you go on to recast this entire debate as if it's between people who want "good" rules and people who want "bad" rules. This is a thing you do in just about every discussion: you always seem to cast your opposition as a mirror-universe version of yourself, whose arguments can be summarized by putting the word "not" in front of your arguments.

Please stop treating your debate opposition as bizarro-Nigels, and engage what's actually being said. There's no side of this debate that wants "bad rules." There's no side of this debate that says "non-functional rules are better than functional ones."

Here's how I would personally summarize King of Nowhere's position:


"D&D 3.x is clearly a functional system the way it is. It has flaws and glitches, but they have relatively little impact on actual gameplay, and are a relatively small price to pay for the customization the system offers. To say 3.x is 'broken' or 'non-functional' because of these minor flaws is absurd hyperbole. Furthermore, efforts to 'fix' it in a systemic way are likely to negatively impact the customizability of the system, and it's therefore unnecessary and undesirable."

I think I've colored that with some of the nuances of my own viewpoints, but I think it's a fairly faithful rendering of what King of Nowhere is arguing.

My own position is that there is a kernel of truth to what he's saying: any system that allows a high degree of customization is likely vulnerable to abuses and glitches. There's going to be some amount of trade-off involved when you try to patch up the flaws in the system, and there's likely to be a law of diminishing returns where, at some point, the costs of the patch outstrip its benefits. And that point will probably be reached a lot sooner than this forum seems to think, because (1) the flaws in the system are much less severe than the forum claims, and (2) the adaptability of the human element of the tabletop genre generally mitigates the flaws anyway. Those two points together mean that the benefits of "fixes" are much lower than the forum thinks they will be, which makes it unlikely that they'll be worth the investment.

Now, you know I've been involved in homebrews and "fixes" and stuff, so it shouldn't surprise you to learn that I'm not opposed to it. I like making new content just for the sake of making new content. I am mostly just opposed to the hyperbole: 3.x is not "broken" or "non-functional," and the rules are not "bad."

[Florian]

Honestly the real claim is even weaker than that. The game may well be working as intended. The point is simply that it could work better. And I think that's fairly inarguable.

I mostly get the feeling that the original devs were not very clear about what their intentions for how the game should be actually are, beyond "Update and streamline AD&D".

I mean, grab a Paizo AP and then the PF1 Core rules and compare them side by side. Then grab more APs and repeat the process. From the data you've collected now, you should be able to form a clear picture of what the intended game here is.

Based on my experience and from exchange with other gms, I know that thinks work well on that particular level. The thing is more that a hug swath of rules material, especially spells, items and artifacts, play absolutely no meaningful role in this setup and using/introducing them will more often than not lead to serious hiccups in running those campaigns.

Then I look at something like Planar Adventure, a truly inspiring source book, come across a Wizard Archetype that is all about planes and planar travel, which makes me wonder because based on the official material (meaning APs), there is no use to that because it is not supported in any way.

At that point, I can already imagine some GM writing a seek-help post like: "Help! I'm running Curse of the Crimson Throne and my Wizard started planeshopping with no intention of coming back to the game!"

[Florian]

@Blue Jay:

In addition, there's a lot that could be learned from the whole "Forge" debacle back in the days.

When you work with a very narrow focus on how your system is going to be used, you can come up with very sleek, streamlined and elegant rules. Simply because you can drill things down to what you focus on and disregard anything else.

The more ground you will try to cover at once, the trickier it gets, especially if you understand your work to be "universal" in some sort.

The later point is the important one. For example, if you want to support both at the same time, hex crawling and planes hopping, that would not be such a great deal if you kept that to independent subsystems. Incorporate the tools for both in the main system, tho, is basically stupid. In the sense that the tools for one might invalidate the other entirely.

[Elves]

Using APs as the standard for how to play the game is like using WOTC sample characters as the standard for building PCs. In most cases there’s not much strategic thought put into them. If the game only “works as intended” when played without strategy, the game doesn’t work. It’s like saying a bad video game is okay because the designers playtested it by pressing buttons on their controllers randomly.

[NigelWalmsley]

You view things in excessively binary terms.

No, I reject the notion that there's a trade-off between "rules are robust" and "rules are customizable" in any inherent way. And, yes, that makes me view King's position that we should accept less robust rules because they are more customizable negatively, because I think he is wrong, and the actual result of rules being less robust (or balanced or good or whatever term) is simply that they are less robust. You don't get anything for Drown Healing or Chain Binding or Monks existing as they do in the rules, it just causes problems.


any system that allows a high degree of customization is likely vulnerable to abuses and glitches.

And my point is that this argument confuses correlation and causation. Yes, complex systems have bugs. But that's not inherent in their being complex. You don't get more bugs simply by adding more complexity, and you certainly don't get more complexity by adding more bugs, as some of the arguments people are making would seem to suggest.

Moreover, even insofar as we accept this as a broadly useful game design principle, this is not a very accurate way of describing the problems with 3e. The reason the Wizard is better than the Monk is not that there are complicated interactions that could not have reasonably been anticipated that make the Wizard better than the Monk. It's that the Wizard gets abilities that are obviously and directly better than what equal-leveled Monks are doing at solving the problems they expect to face. The weird interactions of 3e are really quite robust. Most of the cheese is you using abilities to do things that they explicitly do that are overpowered. Planar Binding isn't broken because there's a critter in the MMIV with abilities that are not appropriate for PCs to have. It's broken because it gets you minions from a type that generally has CR >= HD, and HD greater than your level.

So perhaps you can now appreciate that my position is also nuanced, and not actually as simple as believing you are negative me?


There's going to be some amount of trade-off involved when you try to patch up the flaws in the system, and there's likely to be a law of diminishing returns where, at some point, the costs of the patch outstrip its benefits.

Sure, and if you wanted to talk about your personal game, I would absolutely agree that gentleman's agreements are sufficient. But that doesn't mean the system should have those problems in it. Again, no one has ever made a Monk take a -4 to-hit penalty with his unarmed strikes. From a practical perspective, that rule is fine, and patching it in your game is only likely to cause confusion. But from a system design perspective, that rule needs to be fixed, because it's really stupid and if anyone were to use it, that would make the game worse for no reason.

"Fix it at the table" is an excellent way for your game to work. It is an absolutely terrible way for the game to work.


I mostly get the feeling that the original devs were not very clear about what their intentions for how the game should be actually are, beyond "Update and streamline AD&D".

I mean, grab a Paizo AP and then the PF1 Core rules and compare them side by side. Then grab more APs and repeat the process. From the data you've collected now, you should be able to form a clear picture of what the intended game here is.

Based on my experience and from exchange with other gms, I know that thinks work well on that particular level. The thing is more that a hug swath of rules material, especially spells, items and artifacts, play absolutely no meaningful role in this setup and using/introducing them will more often than not lead to serious hiccups in running those campaigns.

Then I look at something like Planar Adventure, a truly inspiring source book, come across a Wizard Archetype that is all about planes and planar travel, which makes me wonder because based on the official material (meaning APs), there is no use to that because it is not supported in any way.

At that point, I can already imagine some GM writing a seek-help post like: "Help! I'm running Curse of the Crimson Throne and my Wizard started planeshopping with no intention of coming back to the game!"

I don't think APs have any kind of exclusive monopoly on designer intent. Abilities absolutely count towards that as well. After all, it's the same people putting them in the game. If they didn't want you to be able to go on plane-hopping adventures, they could just not give you Plane Shift. Then you would not be able to go on plane-hopping adventures. The fact that they didn't do that seems to me to indicate that there is at least some intent to support said plane-hopping adventures. Probably not on adventure paths, but for the most part those can be broken out of without any particular abilities. From the perspective of an AP, jumping on a boat to the other side of the ocean may as well be Plane Shift.

[AntiAuthority]

For the sake of argument, @AntiAuthority, build us a Superhuman Fighter that gets Ex and Su powers at every level. Anything from any old fantasy. I'll bet you dollars to donuts that no matter what reality ripping skills the dude has, the 3.x wizard will still have so much of an advantage that it's not worth your time trying.
Yes some live was given to martials in splatbooks, but not nearly the same as the casters. And yes there are broken spells in core. By virtue of including such classic things as Wish, Fly, Teleport... Everyone who knows the word wizard 100% expects these classics to be standard issue. By virtue of expectation alone the wizard is broken and overpowered. That is a known evil of the system. The crux of it is that if you really thought some other system was superior, you'd be discussing that, but we're all here for D&D 3.X because like it or not, it's a good system. A knowledgeable DM can basically guide a campaign to about any power level. New players can pick it up easy.

Challenge accepted. The numbers might not match up too well, but the general tone is what I was more focused on. First attempt at designing a class and posting it online, but I learned some stuff from it. As an aside, I got overwhelmed looking for names for already existing things and sort of got creative... Anyway...

Super Fighter X! (Name Pending)



Leve
Base Attack Bonus
Fort Save
Ref Save
Will Save
Special


1
1
+2
+2
+2
Fast Healing (Ex), Damage Reduction (Ex), Well Trained (Ex)


2
2
+3
+3
+3
Awe Inspiring (Su), Master Craftsman (Su), Salvation born of Training (Su)


3
+3
+3
+3
+3
Fast Movement (Ex), Enchanted Hands (Su), Energy Resistance


4
+4
+4
+4
+4
Evasion (Ex), Perfect Immune System (Su), Three Steps Ahead (Ex)


5
+5
+4
+4
+4
Impossible Senses (Su), Rousing Speech (Su), Regeneration (Ex)


6
+6/+1
+5
+5
+5
High Jump (Ex), Bloodless Victory (Su), Razor Wind (Ex), Tireless Body (Ex), Super Strength (Ex)


7
+7/+2
+5
+5
+5
Devour (Su), Dipped in the River Styx (Su), Explosive Attack (Ex), Kill the Undesirable (Su)


8
+8/+3
+6
+6
+6
Spell Resistance, Blood Drain (Su), Doppleganger (Su), Battle Magnet (Su), Kill the Limitations (Su)


9
+9/+4
+6
+6
+6
Unstoppable (Su), Psychic Backlash (Su), Kill the Spell (Su)


10
+10/+5
+7
+7
+7
Permanent Wound (Ex), Spatial-Slice (Su), Relativity (Ex), Kill the Disease (Su), The Undying One (Su)


11
+11/+6/+1
+7
+7
+7
Two Halves of One Whole (Su), Perfected Blacksmith (Ex), Always Accurate (Su), Faster than Time (Su)


12
+12/+7/+2
+8
+8
+8
Perfect Regeneration (Su), Erasure (Su), Impossible to Touch (Ex), Kill the Age (Su)


13
+13/+8/+3
+8
+8
+8
Person of Legend (Ex), Kill the Death (Su), Paradoxical Existence (Su)


14
+14/+9/+4
+9
+9
+9
Kill the Area (Su), Adaptive Existence (Su), Gateway (Su)


15
+15/+10/+5
+9
+9
+9
Kill the Existence (Su), Avatar (Su)


16
+16/+11/+6/+1
+10
+10
+10
Kill the Past (Su), Omnipresent (Su)


17
+17/+12/+7/+2
+10
+10
+10
Breaker of Limits (Ex)


18
+18/+13/+8/+3
+11
+11
+11



19
+19/+14/+9/+4
+11
+11
+11



20
+20/+15/+10/+5
+12
+12
+12
Kill the Reality (Su)



Fluff:

You are a soldier, a mercenary, a guard... You are a Fighter! Through rigorous physical, mental and reflexive training, along with pushing yourself to become a tool of war, you have become more than the average mortal. Your power will, in time, grow enough to threaten the very gods themselves. How foolish of them to create mortals with the ability to surpass their limitations... Your hunger for battle is only surpassed by your hunger for power, and you will use that hunger to become something no one can deny is an apex predator, be they mortal, monster, demon lord or the gods themselves. You do not go into blind bouts of rage, you are no mere savage, your power comes from your training and skills that lesser mortals have no chance of unlocking with their pampered life styles.

Weapon and Armor Proficiency: You are proficient with all weapons, barring the quarterstaff.

Class Skills: Acrobatics, Appraise, Bluff, Climb, Craft, Diplomacy, Disable Device, Handle Animal, Heal, Intimidate, Knowledge (dungeoneering), Knowledge (engineering), Knowledge (geography), Knowledge (History), Knowledge (local), Linguistics, Perception, Ride, Sense Motive, Stealth, Survival, Swim.

Skill Points: 6 + Intelligence

Fast Healing (Ex): You have an innate talent for fighting, with an incredibly fast response to damage. Gives you Fast Healing equal to your Constitution Modifier. At 6 it becomes 10 + Constitution Modifier. At 10 it becomes 10 + Constitution Modifier.

Damage Reduction (Ex): Your body is tough as nails, your muscles and skin are tough enough to deflect damage. You have DR equal to your BAB + Constitution Modifier.

Penetrating Strike (Ex): Any attack you make ignores up DR up to your BAB + STR + INT.

Well Trained: Due to your rigorous training to hone your body, you are very robust at taking beatings. That said, the mental training to remember various styles of weapons and a variety of subjects means that your mind is well honed. The drills you've trained to perfect also allow you to react incredibly well, your reflexes are superhuman! (Because I hate the Big-Dumb Melee Fighter for not making any sense beyond being a rock em shock em robot).

Awe Inspiring: You have something setting you apart from the average mortal, and the people love and revere you for it... Or hate and submit to you for it. You may, as a free action, attempt to Awe any creature who has seen you successfully perform a Skill Check, Damage Roll or some other feat of prowess. They must roll a Will Save, (DC= 10 + Strength Modifier). If they fail, they are under they are act as if they are Charmed for 1d10 days/BAB. At Level 5, it becomes 1d10 months/BAB and cannot be uncharmed because their devotion to you is that strong. At Level 11, they become awed by you for life. They will do anything for you, even die if you so wish it and they believe it is in your honor.

Ultimate Craftsman (Ex, Su): Your ability to craft items is so amazing that they become pseudo-magical in nature... Or rather, your skills are so amazing it is indistinguishable from magic. You may add 1 magical effect to any items you craft, though you must perform a Crafting check equal to at 10 + the Caster Level of the item you wish to add this effect to. (Side note: I'm not making this up, you have a guy in Japanese mythology who made a sword capable of splitting leaves in a stream... And another guy who made a sword that could heal those leaves. Along with the various deity blacksmiths who didn't use spells for their amazing weapons... So I'm counting this as a martial ability).

Salvation Born of Training (Su): Thanks to your intense training, you are becoming an embodiment of power itself. Even conceptual strength... Mental strength included. As such, add your Strength modifier to all Saving Throws.

Fast Movement (Ex): You gain an addition 5 ft person BAB from here on out to movement speeds. At Level 5, it becomes +10 ft/BAB. At Level 7, it becomes an additional 15 ft/BAB. At Level 9 it becomes an additional 20 ft/BAB.

Enchanted Hands (Su): Because of your single minded focus on power, any mundane weapons you touch become a +1 weapon with appropriate abilities, but lose these abilities as soon as the weapon enters the hands of another wielder. For every +3 BAB after this, increase the enhancement bonus by 1.

Energy Resistance: You gain Energy Resistance equal to 10 + BAB + Constitution Modifier. At Level 7 it becomes Energy Immunity to one type. At Level 10, you may select it again, and so on every 3 levels after that.

Perfect Immune System (Su): You are immune to all non-magical diseases, at your discretion.

Three Steps Ahead (Ex): Your training to under how your enemy works gives you the ability to predict their actions. As such, you get a circumstance bonus to attack rolls against your enemy, while simultaneously giving yourself a bonus to your AC, both of which are equal to your Super Fighter Level + Strength Modifier.

Impossible Senses (Su): You can see, hear, smell, etc. up to an 2d6 miles/BAB in fine detail, down to the tiniest microbe and subatomic particles, as if the area was well-lit at all times. At level 7 you can increase your perception up to 4d6 miles/BAB away. Continue to increase the die by 2d6 every 2 levels afterwards. Add an addition +30 to all Perception checks, and treat yourself as if you have Blindsense.

Rousing Speech (Ex):Through your intensive training in psychology, you understand how to motivate your comrades... Though your words may be passionate, your mind is cold and calculating, knowing just the right words to say to motivate them. Roll a 1d10+ your Charisma modifier and your comrades will an addition number of hit points even to that, half of that number to attack and damage (round down, minimum 1). You may use this as 3 + Wisdom Modifier times a day. You may also use this ability to incite creatures that can understand your words and have (at least) a neutral disposition towards to you to aid you in your cause. Every level after you gain this ability, increase its daily uses by +1 per Super Fighter level.

Regeneration (Ex): You gain Regeneration 10 + your constitution modifier, though it stops if hit by Acid and Fire (that overcomes your Energy Resistance/Damage Reduction). At Level 11, your Regeneration cannot be negated as long as your spirit is within your body.

High Jump (Ex): Your powerful body coordination is well beyond what is considered normal by lesser trained mortals. When you leap, you roll as you would normally and calculate the result. When you have the number, multiply that number by 10, that is the amount of feet you may jump by. At level 7, you may multiply the number you would receive on the dice by 100 feet instead. By Level 9, the length you may jump is equal to the result, but in miles. At level 11, multiply the result by 5x and that is the number of miles you may leap. You may bring as many objects and persons as your maximum carrying capacity allows with you, none of you are injured by the impact. This is your movement for this round.

Bloodless Victory (Su): Any number of times per day equal to your Super Fighter Level + Charisma, you may frighten all beings within 1d12 miles of you that can sense you in any way. If they have less Hit Die than you do in Super Fighter levels, they immediately surrender to you and comply with your demands. The save to resist this effect is 10 + Your Charisma modifier. If you so wish, you may make those that fail die of fright or run off into the distance, screaming and trying to stay as far from you as possible. The DC is raised by the number equal to your Strength/Dexterity modifier if you used it in a way (throwing a boulder, sniping off the top of a large tree) that those that can sense you are capable of perceiving.

Razor Wind (Ex): Your attacks have more force behind them that the wind itself becomes a weapon. Every attack you make causes damage to whatever is in front of you and behind whatever you were swinging at. You must roll to attack as normal, then roll for damage. You may shape this into a cone (increase the range by 5ft per every full point of BAB + current Modifier being used to attack)/line (increase the range by 10ft per every full point of BAB + current modifier of attack being used), of your preference, but every attack you make will, if it beat their armor class, require a Fortitude Saving Throw (DC = 10 + BAB + Strength/Dexterity Modifier). The range increments double every Super Fighter level after this, along with the damage die improving by one as well. (For example, you use 1d12 at Level 6, at Level 7 you use 2d12 for damage and so on). Objects are also subject to this damage, if you so choose. At Level 10, increase the distance to number of miles/BAB. At Level 13, increase the range to number of kilometers/BAB. You may add effects (elemental damage, level drain, etc.) that you gain from Super Fighter.

Tireless Body (Ex): You may go 1d6 + Constitution Modifier of days without needing to sleep, eat or take part in any other necessities before feeling the need to stop. At Level 10, you no longer need to sleep, eat or rest at all, and are immune to all effects that would put you to sleep.

Super Strength (Ex): Your diligent training is paying off, while you now remain the same size, your Strength and Constitution (your dexterity stays the same) are increased as though you went up a size category, along with your carrying capacity being increased to fit the next largest size category and you may now wield weapons appropriate to your current size category as if they were normal sized weapons to to you. Increase it by the next available size category every level until you reach Level 10.

Kill the Wound (Su): You've realized that wounds can die (fade) and found out that you can, even with a normal weapon not designed for it, strike someone and heal with them the same amount of damage you'd inflict.

Devour (Su): You understand that eating is an important part of growing stronger. Through your increased power, you realize you can draw extra power doing so. Like the tribes who believed devouring their enemies granted them power, you've found there is truth in their words. Whenever you devour a creature, any creature, you may choose to add their Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, Intelligence, Wisdom and Charisma to your own ability scores as permanent, untyped bonuses (For example, say you have 10 Strength and eat something with 15 Strength, your strength is improved to 25 Strength, same with your other ability scores), as well as any Skills they had invested in being added onto your skills in addition to any Supernatural or Extraordinary abilities they possess becoming your own (for example, if you devour an Ancient Red Dragon, you gain it's Fire Aura (Su), Manipulate Flames (Su), Melt Stone (Su) and Smoke Vision (Ex)), as well as knowing everything the being you devoured knew and gaining any Feats they had that you qualify for. This effect stacks with itself. (I could go the extra mile here and say they get class features too... Including spell casting classes.)

Dipped in the River Styx (Su): You are now invulnerable to all forms of damage (piercing, slashing, bludgeoning, acid, cold, electricity, fire, sonic) except for one of your choosing.

Explosive Attack (Ex): Your attacks are causing explosions from the force involved in them. As a free action, you may strike the ground/environment hard enough to cause an explosion equal to 1d10/BAB for everything within 100 feet/BAB nearby for half Fire, half Bludgeoning damage of how much damage you rolled to attack the ground/environment/your enemy. You take the damage as usual (unless you are immune to the damage types). At Level 10 it becomes 100 miles/BAB and shoots debris into the sky, blocking out the sun for 3d4 hours. At level 13 it becomes 500 miles/BAB and you are no longer damaged by the backlash of your attack.

Kill the Undesirable (Su): You understand are just things that can be damaged and killed like anything else, and how to remove it from people. You may cut out memories/opinions of others with a weapon, destroying them. At 10th level, you can replace the memory with one of your own choosing.

Spell Resistance: You gain Spell Resistance = to 10 + Your Super Fighter levels + Wisdom Modifier + Constitution Modifier.

Blood Drain (Su): Every wound you inflict on your enemy returns health to yourself. For every 2 points of damage you inflict, give back 1 point of damage to your character.

Battle Magnet (Su): You send out a wave of malice to draw all within a 1d4 mile to come and attack you in a mindless bloodlust of melee, must beat Will Save and Fortitude Save to avoid this.

Kill the Limitations (Su): You realize the limits people place on themselves are living things or part of living things. You kill these limitations, allowing individuals to untap more of their hidden potential. You may use this on yourself to increase your skills/stats by destroying your own limitations and weaknesses.

Doppleganger (Su): You learn the ins and outs of your regenerative abilities. Every drop of blood you shed turns into a fully grown clone of yourself in 1d4 rounds, with the same ability scores, skills, class levels, abilities, etc. as the original. Each clone works together towards a common goal, sharing a hive mind with each other. Should the original die, the clones will assume the original's place, and arguably each have their own soul.

Unstoppable (Su): Whenever you fail a saving throw against a spell, and you are not Dead, you may begin to reroll every turn afterwards to break free from the effect while also moving as normal and possessing all of your abilities. (For example, if you are affected by Flesh to Stone, you can continue to move, attack and speak as a statue. If you are turned into a newt with Baleful Polymorph and had hit points/were unconscious, but Dead, you would retain superhuman strength in the form of a Newt and reroll to undo the effects every turn afterward.) Magic has no hold over you.

Psychic Backlash (Su): Any attempts to enter/influence your mind without permission will be met with pain. Every round a character is within your mind without your consent, roll a Will Save. If it succeeds, you may send them 1d12 psychic damage and force them out, or take control over the telepathic link and invade their minds, forcing them into your hive mind/leaving their body a mindless wreck somewhere in the real world. The save to resist this is equal to 10 + Super Fighter Level + Charisma Modifier.

Kill the Spell (Su): Spells are alive in a strange sense of putting it... And if it's alive, you can kill it. You can cleave the spells off of yourself or others with precision and killing the spell with your ability to deliver death to anything.

Threaten the Reality (Ex): From the blows of your attacks, you shake the foundations of reality with each blow, threatening to bring all of creation tumbling down around you.

Permanent Wound (Ex): Any wounds dealt by you hit at the spiritual and molecular level, meaning that healing magic does nothing to the damaged soul. Short of a Wish spell or a god's intervention, the wound will inevitably get worse if left alone. The target will lose 1d4 Constitution Score every 1d3 days. Only Kill the Wound may stop this.

Spatial Slicing (Ex): You understand that things in space can be cut, that everything is capable of being damaged, so why not the concept of space itself? You may cut a point in space-time to lead to another place in space, either in this plane or to another one entirely and a portal through which you can travel. If performed inside a demi-plane with the right intent, the demi-plane will begin to collapse in on itself and render the entire demi-plane non-existent soon after.

Time is Relative (Su): You are now immune to the effects of time, unless you choose to let it affect you, such as time stop or being slowed by magic. You move so fast that you may take the equivalent of several rounds in the time it would take a normal person to take one. You gain an additional full round equal to your 1d4 + Super Fighter Level + Dexterity Modifier. (For exampl, if you were Super Fighter with 15 levels, a Dexterity Modifier of +5 and rolled a 4, you would end up with the equivalent of 24 full round actions while everyone else only takes one). The number of Full Round Actions you have doubles when you reach 13, triples at 16 and so on every three levels of Super Fighter.

Kill the Disease (Su): You realize that diseases are living beings too, at least while they're inside a host. Using your surgerical sight and knowledge of the human anatomy, you kill the disease on a microscopic level and return the flesh to a healthy state.

The Undying One (Su): You have as many lives than a cat does. If you are reduced to a state where you would be considered dead under normal circumstances (such as being disintegrated after being reduced to double your Consitution score), instead you would just be rendered unconscious unless you were killed a certain number of times soon after as well. For example, if you have 10 Super Fighter levels and a +5 Constitution Modifier, you will revive at least 15 times before being able to be killed normally with regeneration.

Two Halves Of One Whole (Su): The grim reaper has no hold over you. If your soul is removed from your body for any reason and you are not Dead at the time, and your spirit is free to wander, you may begin to attempt to possess a creature of your choosing or attack them as a spirit. Your body, meanwhile, if physically able, will begin to attack anything indiscriminately until your mind is put back into it. If someone were to attempt to possess your body while your soul is outside of it, the body will begin to constantly make Saves to force the intruder out until the body is either put down or you rejoin with it properly. If your spirit is attempted to be forced into something against its will, you may begin inflicting damage to the object/person and break free as long as you are willing to fight. Attempts to control your disembodied spirit will allow Psychic Backlash to increase in terms of damage to 1d8/Fighter Level of damage.

Perfected Blacksmith (Ex): You've found a way to create weapons and armor to bolster your abilities even further. You may create armor that will root your existence further into place, allow you to view other realities and paradoxes, increase the damage of your strikes and make you even closer to being truly impervious. Your weapons, for example, will always kill whatever they hit (or heal whatever they hit if you designed it as such...) in one strike.

Always Accurate (Su): You strike from higher dimensions and your attacks always hit their targets. If you strike someone from across the planet with the intent to hit them, they will be hit, no matter the distance or if they are even on another plane or inside of the same space you're occupying.

Time is Relative (Su): By moving fast enough (running, jumping, flying...), you begin to alter time to move into the future or go into the past, thus creating a new timeline, though you will remain alive

Perfect Regeneration (Ex, Su): Your regeneration is several magnitudes greater than that of a lower being's. If your body is destroyed/unable to be merged with, your spirit will form a new one out of nothing to give it a new body. If your body is unable to merge with your spirit, it will create a new spirit to inhabit it. Leave one alone for too long, the other will inevitably begin to fill in the gaps. This new body is just as powerful as the old one, only lacking the equipment they possessed (if the body emerged from your wandering/trapped spirit). You are hereby immune to Level Drain, Ability Drain/Damage, etc. your regeneration will repair the issue immediately.

Erasure (Su): When you deal damage to an enemy, you may choose to force them to do a Fortitude and Will Save. If they fail one or the other, their spirit will be rended into a thousand pieces and spread across the planes, never able to reform again outside of a Wish or deity's intervention.

Impossible to Touch (Su): No matter how swift your opponent's attacks are, unless they are operating in a realm higher than the lower dimensions, they will automatically fail.

Person of Legend (Ex): Anyone who meets you will know who you are and will, when they are, at most, neutral, attempt to gain your favor because of your reputation. Royalty will all have a friendly attitude (on the surface, anyway) disposition towards you, peasantry will be in awe of seeing a living legend and the warriors of the community will have a high opinion of you... Assuming you haven't antagonized these people in the past. Even extradimensional entities that you share at least one alignment component with will generally be friendly towards you.

Kill the Death (Su): You realize that death can die like anyone else. You may strike a corpse and force it to do a save... If the save fails, you reanimate the dead person. Death is but child's play to you by this point.

Kill the Area (Su): You realize that killing extends to everything... Including the soil you're standing on, the air you're breathing... By killing it on a metaphysical level, you render the area inhospitable to life, as all who breathe in this dead air will suffocate and those who walk on this dead soil will rot away and die.

Adaptive Existence (Su): You become particularly resistant to negative parts of reality. Upon you being injured or exposed to an effect/damage type of your choosing, you are, hereby, immune to all its effects from the future onward if you so choose. (For example, if you are forcibly teleported somewhere through a portal once and you fail/beat the save, any attempts to forcibly teleport you again will hereby fail if you so choose.) You can only be killed the same way once doing this.

Gateway (Su): All of the foes you've used to Devour on are now a part of you. You may summon any being you've devoured to fight for you, and if they are destroyed, you must wait 1d4 rounds before summoning them again. They retain all their abilities at the time you devoured them and will fight as if they are an extension of you.

Paradoxical Existence (Su): Your existence is a paradox to reality itself. Any attempts to erase you from existence will be met with failure if you have all of your hit points and are not considered "Dead." Time and spatial paradoxes mean nothing to you.

Kill the Existence (Su): You realize existence is a form of being and is alive... By striking someone, or something, on an existential level, you erase any history of it from existence. Any impact it/they might have had on the world, anyone who knew them/it, anyone born from them/it would cease to exist. Not even the gods remember this existence, with no one none the wiser... Except you, you don't operate on such lowly, mortal physics anymore, do you? You can do whatever you want and the universe itself will be none the wiser.Besides, you can always hit them with Razor Wind and Explosive Attacks and wipe out whole groups of people in the blink of an eye. Who's going to stop you? The gods don't remember what you're doing either.

Avatar (Su): You may, as a free action, create a puppet body that possess all of your abilities (with half your Super Fighter levels and appropriate abilities) and remotely control it from another plane of existence. Any damage done to your Avatar doesn't harm you, but you will have to wait 1d4 hours before creating another Avatar. Your Dopplegangers each gain their own Avatar as well.

Kill the Past (Su): You can kill parts of the past without affecting yourself, or the things you wish to preserve. Reality really is just one big toy for you.

Omnipresent (Su): You now exist within all points in space and time. You are everywhere and nowhere. From physical locations such as any place in the micro and macrocosm, to conceptual and abstract places like thoughts, dreams, possibilities, pictures and everything imaginable. Past, present and future mean nothing to you. Any plans, words, phrases, actions that have happened, will happen and might happen, you are aware of because you are there even if not visible. As such, when you attack you may attack every thing that exists at once (for example, you roll for your highest BAB and can choose to attack every individual cell in your opponent's body at once 5 years before they even met you... Or killed them the instant they were born... Or killed their ancestors before they existed.). All attacks to hit you automatically fail, least they be able to damage all of reality simultaneously at once. All thoughts are subject to your tampering with, as you exist within them and can change the thoughts of each and every individual (there is no need to fight anymore, as even if a god tried to defeat you, you could simply kill them before they became gods or, since you exist within their minds and hearts, retroactively change their beliefs so that they have no ill will towards you). There are no secrets that are safe from you. You are everywhere and nowhere. As a free action, you may create as many Avatars (they are perfect clones of you and possess all of your physical form's abilities, as opposed to being weakened copies like before) as you wish within the multiverse, any damage done to your avatars does nothing to you, they each gain the same number of attacks as your physical form would with all of your Class Abilities, they reform instantly if slain (or are replaced by an entirely different one you created at that point in time) and can manifest themselves as small as the smallest objects in the universe or as large as the multiverse itself if you so wish. Any negative effects that exist within time automatically fail, as you would simply revert to a time before it happened, after it happened or a possibility where it never happened at all. You are hereby immune to anything that exists within reality as a result, unless you choose to do so. By the same logic, if you attempt anything (attack rolls, saving throws, etc.), you automatically succeed as you exist in a reality where that occurs reflexively (unless you choose not to).

Existing Outside Reality(Su): You exist outside of and within time. Any attempts to affect your existence (through magic or otherwise), without your permission, will automatically fail. The concept of harming you is truly impossible, as you exist simultaneously within reality and outside of it. Even reality dying doesn't affect you in any way, as you existed before it came into being and will exist long after. Even the idea of you dying is an impossibility.

Kill the Reality (Su): You realize that reality itself is alive. Every little being, from the gods to mortals, to the microbes, to even the earth itself and the planets are all alive... And if it's alive it can be killed. You may choose to kill whatever aspect of the universe offends you, wiping away parts of existence or the entire planes you used to exist in. You can kill aspects of reality (such as wiping out entire bloodlines, concepts such as anger/love, the existence of entire planets, etc.) or every reality you want to until you find the one you wish to live in. Even killing the divinity from a god is child's play to you.

I'm sure I missed something, since there have been how many books in 3.5E/Pathfinder 1E? Either way, this was just something I came up with on the fly for the most part. You said Su and Ex, so I just decided to go a little far, but I also held back in some areas (like having infinite Carrying Capacity at Level 10 like Hercules pretty much did), though I feel Devour (maybe gaining Class Levels through it too...), Kill the X, learning all Su and Ex abilities of every being they encountered and witnessed (even without using Devour) and such are all good examples of how broken such a character could be. To make it clear, I could have made this many times more powerful because there's a lot of weird stuff in fiction and mythology that aren't spells (and I'd need to recall looking at). Maybe someone better at designing classes can improve upon it, but my point is (besides having way too much free time on my hands today) that there isn't any reason to say "Magic should be better than non-magic" much like there isn't any reason to say "Non-magic should be superior to magic" as both are just preferences with no basis in reality (and the disucssion might as well turn into Santa Claus vs Paul Bunyan... Or which omnipotence is stronger than the other omnipotence). If it doesn't open your eyes to the possibilities of balancing classes with both being awesome, well... I don't know what else to say beyond we just can't see eye to eye on fictional limitations of fictional characters, but I had fun writing up the hypothetical class.

[nedz]

The main reason I consider 3.X to be broken is the design goals.

As far as I know, 3.X was supposed to be balanced.
Nope.
Back in the day I downloaded the writer's guide for 3.5 — what they wanted was innovation. For an adventure to be considered for publication you had to add some new classes, races, feats, spells, items, ... etc.
There was no mention of balance.


The problems come in groups where it doesn't work.
this.

I DM for two groups.

Group A are generally well behaved, if someone stumbles across a broken option, a spell say, then it doesn't get used again. No house rules are required here.

Group B feature players with a wide variety of play styles from a Mr Fireball to game breaking power gaming.
So I removed Tier 1 classes, and a few other things, in order to equalise the power a little.

[Mechalich]

Nope.
Back in the day I downloaded the writer's guide for 3.5 — what they wanted was innovation. For an adventure to be considered for publication you had to add some new classes, races, feats, spells, items, ... etc.
There was no mention of balance.

Um...the fact that no mention of balance was made in regard to adventure design is an implicit claim that the system is itself balanced and therefore such considerations are unnecessary.

[Florian]

@Elves/NigelWalmsley:

Now you two confuse me a bit.

We are talking about whether something is working as intended. Would we be talking about something that is designed as a Forge-style Storygame, so with no difference between the rules and the game you play with those rules, this would be easy to gauge.

That's not so much the case with most "classic" RPG systems, as, for example, the PHB is like 100% how to create your character and 0% what to do with your characters afterwards.

Therefore, use something that is actually intended to be played with those rules and characters and check whether it would work out or not.

For example, a newbie without any guidance should come up with a character that is roughly the equal of one of the sample characters/iconics. If that works out, then character generation works as intended.

Now take four newbies as throw them into an AP. If that works out, then something works as intended here.

What I don´t have, tho, is any comparison point of how high power gaming is intended to work, as there is no example for it to be found. With what I have (Modules, APs, society scenarios and such), I can not create a data point beyond the obvious, which is that mixing those will "break the game".

So, only thing I can say at this point is, yes, high power options are there, but they are not really supported.

It´s also interesting to compare Epic with Mythic rules.

[RexDart]

In a way, I agree with King of Nowhere. I'm not the most experienced player or DM, but in my experience, serious balance issues don't seem to come up nearly as frequently most people on this forum think they do. From what I've seen, while most players are power-gamers, the majority don't seem overly interested in the kind of high-end optimization that's more likely to create balance gaps, and I also haven't seen many cases where lower-end optimizers fall so far behind that they're effectively obsolete.

Granted, most of the people who play 3.x anymore tend to be competent optimizers, so the optimization floor isn't usually a major worry. And I tend to be pretty lenient and accommodating as a DM, so I suppose that mutes the consequences of weak builds. But overall, it doesn't seem terribly difficult to get the majority of players to buy in to a gentlemen's agreement, and the whole process seems to be pretty self-correcting in the long run.

I'm not saying that there are no balance issues in the system's mechanics: I'm just saying that the problem doesn't seem as severe to me as this forum thinks it is. The game mechanics seem to create only a small fraction of the problems that toxic players and out-of-character drama causes. So, while I agree with the sentiment of trying to "fix" the system, I think the problems are way overblown.

I'm with you - every RPG is a social contract, and the DM can decide to allow or disallow things. Players being on different pages than the DM (or other players) and the various flavors of toxic gamer are far more dangerous than "broken systems" in most cases.

On another front, most people seem to agree that the MOST broken bits of 3.x don't really come in until the higher levels... which the vast majority of players don't play.

Personally, having played in 3 3.5 campaigns with homebrew modifications (same DM), up to 11th level, the only truly broken thing I've seen is that the Monk class sucks.

[Lans]

Perfectly balanced isn't going to happen, but there are a lot of ways that let you close the gaps. Imagine the fighter, starting in 3.0 had the same amount of feats as a Sorcerer gets known. He's not the same tier as the sorceror or warblade, but it raises him enough that it's probably the barbarian and monk that are being singled out as ineffective.

[nedz]

Um...the fact that no mention of balance was made in regard to adventure design is an implicit claim that the system is itself balanced and therefore such considerations are unnecessary.

Not when you were required to add to the system.

[KoDT69]

Personally, having played in 3 3.5 campaigns with homebrew modifications (same DM), up to 11th level, the only truly broken thing I've seen is that the Monk class sucks.
Lol I have the same experience. The only 2 players that ever do the broken stuff are myself (usually the DM anyway) and the other DM (we take turns). Of course we both use the cheese only when necessary as to not ruin anyone else's fun. But the big thing that did ruin a game was one of my players tried to play a Monk. I gave it extra feats, extra BAB, extra super powers.... Nope. Still sucks. Being a Monk style Monk results in suckitude. He jumped into a dragon's mouth intentionally, you know, to save the others... And roll a new character... :smallwink:

[Kesnit]

was the guy complaining because he was ineffective? then he was the problem, since he kept refusing help.
was nobody complaining? then things are fine.
in my group there is a guy that's much less effectrive than everyone else, and we offered to help him many times - we did help him achieve a modicum of competence. but he said he is happy as he is, so there's no problem.

The other players were complaining, so there was a problem.

The FGT/BARB was built for combat and did not have the skills for most non-combat things. That is what the player wanted and she was happy. Because she was effective in the one area she wanted to be (and she liked to RP), there was no issue from the other players. The problem player was completely ineffective in anything - including what was supposed to be his niche - but refused any help in how to get better.


you also prove my point. so, within the same rules framework, morty can choose to play a low power gritty heroic fantasy, and asmotherion can decide to play a demigod. of course, this needs that everyone agrees to keep the power level consistent within the party.

One of the issues with 3.X is that the split can happen early and by accident. If you have a party of Fighter, Druid, Rogue, and Wizard, the fighter will likely be outclassed quickly by the Druid's AC - even if a newbie Druid player just picks something that looks cool (bear or wolf). The Rogue can probably hang on for longer, especially if the Wizard doesn't take the spells that step on the Rogue's toes, but who needs Hide when there is Invisibility? (And points in Hide are permanent. If the Wizard doesn't need Invisibility, they can swap it out for a more appropriate spell tomorrow.)

These are not issues of system mastery or high level. These are issues in the PHB that even a newbie player is going to look at and think are cool.


give me a "balanced" system where you can still decide to play both.


Now the core of the argument... You can't balance a fighter to a wizard. Magic is better than no magic no matter how you spin it. You can still build a fighter capable of contributing and have fun playing. Doesn't matter if you admit to agreeing or disagreeing with this. Any system where there is magic and no magic is either going to lack options, have weak magic, or suffer imbalance issues.


Not at all. Any system where the player puts points into what they want and feels are appropriate without being hamstrung by "class" can balance magic and non-magic. The first one that comes to mind is HERO because I am familiar with it. The player decides what they want their PC to do and spends points accordingly. Depending on the game and intended power level, the ST can set the number of starting points and let the players build what they want. Want gritty? Less starting point. Want the PCs to be demi-gods? More points.


Let's take an example. I run a murder mystery game. It involves a lot of investigation, talking to NPCs, searching for physical clues, and maybe the odd bit of divination.
I also run a game called '24 hours of death', in which the PCs are holed up in a bunker as wave after wave of enemies try and take the bunker. It involves combat, and a certain amount of psychological horror. No game system is going to be balanced for both. It's not desirable for a game system to be balanced for both. But I can run both in 3.5

I disagree that no system is balanced for both. I agree that you would not use the same PCs for both, but I don't think that is what you meant. As I said above, any system where the players put a pre-designated number of points into abilities of their choice would cover both of your examples.


Here's how I would personally summarize King of Nowhere's position:


"D&D 3.x is clearly a functional system the way it is. It has flaws and glitches, but they have relatively little impact on actual gameplay, and are a relatively small price to pay for the customization the system offers. To say 3.x is 'broken' or 'non-functional' because of these minor flaws is absurd hyperbole. Furthermore, efforts to 'fix' it in a systemic way are likely to negatively impact the customizability of the system, and it's therefore unnecessary and undesirable."

I think the people who are saying the flaws have little impact on gameplay are missing the mark. I agree that most of the times the flaws do not impact gameplay, but there are times when the flaws do have an impact. Those are the times when the Fighter and Rogue are getting pushed to the side because of the Druid and Wizard. Those are the times when a player - using all official material - builds a PC that just doesn't work.

[Florian]

@Kesnit:

The problem with this approach is something that seems to be inherent to the D&D crowd, especially those that are deeply into 3.5E: They tent to treat rules as physics and the entire rules set as sort of a simulation.

Instead of HERO, you could also use Fate Core and get a similar result. The balance is there. But you will get complaints for the same reasons, lack of verisimilitude.

[KoDT69]

@Kensit
I'm guessing by your join date you've been at it a while. I don't buy your premise of balance in the "DIY point buy" character building. Sure your players all START with the same POTENTIAL, but you know in every system like that there are superior options and just bad choices that can be made. This isn't balance in the sense we're discussing. It's simply a way to blame the player for the character being suboptimal rather than the game designer. I've tried many systems in the last 3 decades and haven't seen one yet that was immune to this.
Now for casters replacing the Rogue type stuff, sure you can do it, but in actual gameplay the mentality I've seen is "I'll prepare this just in case the Rogue has some bad luck with rolls". The rogue is a free unlimited resource and to fill your spells for the day replacing something you already have for free is poor resource management. To be 100% honest I have never been witness to that complaint. I get that it can happen but even with new players it's like "oh this door is locked and we're trying not to make a scene, Rogue, this is all you buddy". Luckily I haven't had to deal with spotlight hogging players in that manner.

[Bartmanhomer]

If only it was that easy to balance D&D 3.X. I think the problem for balanced that the caster class, Wizards, Clerics, and other Tier 1 class is the main issue for the D&D 3.5 while the Mundane class such as Fighters and Rogues and other Tier 4-6 class doesn't do much for D&D 3.5. The rest of the Tier 2-3 classes are very good and solid. It's just only the Tier 1 class that needs to nerf for the sake of balance.

[Florian]

@Kensit
I'm guessing by your join date you've been at it a while. I don't buy your premise of balance in the "DIY point buy" character building. Sure your players all START with the same POTENTIAL, but you know in every system like that there are superior options and just bad choices that can be made. This isn't balance in the sense we're discussing. It's simply a way to blame the player for the character being suboptimal rather than the game designer. I've tried many systems in the last 3 decades and haven't seen one yet that was immune to this.

It´s more about how the general design process works and what thoughts about "balance" (in whatever way) that includes.

For example, SM follows a fixed pattern: Skills rang from 1 to 12 and unlock 4 talents along the way. For each skill, the talent choices always include one combat, one exploration and one social option.

So, the Sailing skill would include "Tavern Talk", "Steady on the deck" and "sell the booty" as 1st choices, while the Water Magic skill would include "Talk to Fish", "Expert Swimmer" and "Slippery Target".

I think the design choices here are pretty clear. Even when you have to invest deeply into the sort of skills your archetype needs to function, talent choices would allow you to still participate in other areas - Diplomacy coming with combat choices, defense with social choices and so on.

Now the argument can be made that "Talk to Fish" is exceedingly powerless in a desert, it´s source is the quite powerful Water Magic school and so on.

[NigelWalmsley]

If only it was that easy to balance D&D 3.X. I think the problem for balanced that the caster class, Wizards, Clerics, and other Tier 1 class is the main issue for the D&D 3.5 while the Mundane class such as Fighters and Rogues and other Tier 4-6 class doesn't do much for D&D 3.5. The rest of the Tier 2-3 classes are very good and solid. It's just only the Tier 1 class that needs to nerf for the sake of balance.

That's really not true. The primary thing you need for balance is buffs, not nerfs. Classes being overpowered is genuinely less of a problem than classes being underpowered, because it's much easier to sandbag than it is to get power you don't have, and because the PCs are expected to win, meaning that additional winning isn't really a problem.

[Bartmanhomer]

That's really not true. The primary thing you need for balance is buffs, not nerfs. Classes being overpowered is genuinely less of a problem than classes being underpowered, because it's much easier to sandbag than it is to get the power you don't have, and because the PCs are expected to win, meaning that additional winning isn't really a problem.That makes more sense. Buffs all Tier 2-6 Class then people will have a more balanced game. :smile:

[Batcathat]

That's really not true. The primary thing you need for balance is buffs, not nerfs. Classes being overpowered is genuinely less of a problem than classes being underpowered, because it's much easier to sandbag than it is to get power you don't have, and because the PCs are expected to win, meaning that additional winning isn't really a problem.

No, the primary thing you need for balance is buffs, not nerfs. As I believe we've discussed before, some of us prefer bringing down the walking deus ex machinas a few pegs in addition to bringing up the underpowered.

[NigelWalmsley]

No, the primary thing you need for balance is buffs, not nerfs. As I believe we've discussed before, some of us prefer bringing down the walking deus ex machinas a few pegs in addition to bringing up the underpowered.

"The primary thing you need is buffs" doesn't mean you need no nerfs, it means you need to start with buffs, and you need more buffs than nerfs. And I think that's unquestionably true. Yes, maybe the Wizard needs to take a haircut somewhere. But that nerf is tiny compared to what every class that isn't a full caster needs as a buff. Maybe you think the Wizard needs to lose half it's versatility. That's a big nerf. But can you really claim that the Barbarian only needs to get 50% better? That the Fighter's utility options are already at two-thirds the optimal level? I don't think you can, so I think it is absolutely fair to say that regardless of where you think the optimum is, the primary tool you should be employing is buffs.

Moreover, the things that really need to be nerfed (in the absolutely sense of "the game does not work as written" rather than the more subjective sense of "I don't like this dynamic") are not things that are in any way exclusive to the T1s. Yes, Planar Binding is broken. But it's broken in the exact same way and for the exact same reasons as Diplomacy or Leadership, and there are even T2 classes like the Dread Necromancer and Sorcerer that just get Planar Binding as a thing they are allowed to do. None of the reasons it is a problem are problems with the Wizard, so while nerfing it would certainly reduce the Wizard's power, it's not really correct to describe the problem as "the Wizard needs to be nerfed".

[Batcathat]

Maybe you think the Wizard needs to lose half it's versatility. That's a big nerf. But can you really claim that the Barbarian only needs to get 50% better

I feel like it's near impossible to quantify the difference in versatility and power, I'm not really sure what a 50% better barbarian would even look like. But sure, it's important to buff the weak and not just nerf the strong, I'm just vary of people doing that and ending up with every class an overpowered tier 1. Which would be a lot more balanced, granted, but it's not the change I'd prefer, I don't like a wizard who can do almost everything much more than a fighter who can do barely anything.

[RexDart]

Lol I have the same experience. The only 2 players that ever do the broken stuff are myself (usually the DM anyway) and the other DM (we take turns). Of course we both use the cheese only when necessary as to not ruin anyone else's fun. But the big thing that did ruin a game was one of my players tried to play a Monk. I gave it extra feats, extra BAB, extra super powers.... Nope. Still sucks. Being a Monk style Monk results in suckitude. He jumped into a dragon's mouth intentionally, you know, to save the others... And roll a new character... :smallwink:

We had a player (wholly new to D&D, I think) who was very excited to play a monk, especially when she saw that there was a "Drunken Master" prestige class available, and got really into the roleplaying concept. But in practice, she was missing a lot, getting hit not-infrequently, and when she hit it was like "I hit the goblin with my cool martial arts fan! For... 3 points of damage." She ended up switching to Barbarian, which I understand is suboptimal in its own way, but at least you get to have fun hitting things with a big axe.

My DM friend and I were talking about this, and we got to thinking maybe the problem is perception, that you think the class is about being a little guy with great DEX and STR as a dump stat, but as written you need to have a high STR to be decent. Which may be true, but IMO still means the class sucks, because you need so many high stats just to bring the character up to minimal competence.

[NigelWalmsley]

I feel like it's near impossible to quantify the difference in versatility and power, I'm not really sure what a 50% better barbarian would even look like. But sure, it's important to buff the weak and not just nerf the strong, I'm just vary of people doing that and ending up with every class an overpowered tier 1. Which would be a lot more balanced, granted, but it's not the change I'd prefer, I don't like a wizard who can do almost everything much more than a fighter who can do barely anything.

I think the tier system loses a lot of its utility when you start talking about sweeping changes to the system. Part of the reason T1 classes seem so versatile is that the system doesn't define the things they're expected to deal with very well, so conversations tend to implicitly define those challenges around their abilities. That inflates their perceived versatility, because we tend to assume that things that are currently interacted with by "Wizard casts Teleport, advanced to next time the rest of the party matters" could only ever be solved that way. I'm not at all convinced that's the case.

[Mechalich]

Buffs vs. Nerfs depends primarily on the balance point you intend to play at. This will of course vary from table to table, so individual needs will vary. However the balance point for published adventures, especially the many PF adventure paths, seems to have a consensus at around Tier 3. If that's your goal, then you need a modest amount of buffs for classes at Tier 4 and 5 to get them up (PF already buffs the fighter most of the way, and the unchained rogue gets a lot further than the base rogue), and a huge heaping pile of nerfs to knock the Tier 1 and Tier 2 classes down to Tier 3. Consider that Starfinder, which is clear intended to utilize a similar balance point, eliminated spells of levels 7-9 entirely. That's just the start of the sort of nerfs you need.

[King of Nowhere]

Personally, having played in 3 3.5 campaigns with homebrew modifications (same DM), up to 11th level, the only truly broken thing I've seen is that the Monk class sucks.

i've been playing a monk for 3 years, from level 1 to level 17, and it's not my case at all. I am pretty effective in combat, and i am the most difficult thing to kill in the whole campaign world.
but that's mostly about expectations. if you play a monk and try to compete with a fighter for damage, you'll never make it. i did play a monk to pump my defence to the sky - i currently have +25 as my weakest saving throw, and a touch AC of 39. a wizard can get higher with shapechange, but i won't lose it to a successful dispel. i don't have huge offence, i just have to get creative and use my near invincibility to be a general nuisance.

[False God]

i've been playing a monk for 3 years, from level 1 to level 17, and it's not my case at all. I am pretty effective in combat, and i am the most difficult thing to kill in the whole campaign world.
but that's mostly about expectations. if you play a monk and try to compete with a fighter for damage, you'll never make it. i did play a monk to pump my defence to the sky - i currently have +25 as my weakest saving throw, and a touch AC of 39. a wizard can get higher with shapechange, but i won't lose it to a successful dispel. i don't have huge offence, i just have to get creative and use my near invincibility to be a general nuisance.

Um...how?

+25 to any Monk saving throw at level 17 would require at least a bonus of +15, via either raw stat of +40, or some assemblage of gear.

Now, if you're about to say you're multiclassing, prestiege classing then well...you're not playing the monk, and sort of proves the point that the Monk needs help if it wants to get serious.

IE: I think the Monk2/PsionX is a perfectly great setup to play what many people might call a "monk". But it's not the Monk class that's doing the heavy lifting here, not really. It's the Psion class getting some physical combat boosts.

[Mechalich]

i've been playing a monk for 3 years, from level 1 to level 17, and it's not my case at all. I am pretty effective in combat, and i am the most difficult thing to kill in the whole campaign world.
but that's mostly about expectations. if you play a monk and try to compete with a fighter for damage, you'll never make it. i did play a monk to pump my defence to the sky - i currently have +25 as my weakest saving throw, and a touch AC of 39. a wizard can get higher with shapechange, but i won't lose it to a successful dispel. i don't have huge offence, i just have to get creative and use my near invincibility to be a general nuisance.

I think you're overestimating how much the monk features are contributing here versus just generally building for maximum defense. For instance, you say a +25 is you weakest save, so maybe you have +80 between all three saves. Well, only 30 of that is from the monk class, or 37.5%. More importantly, even a Fighter, with two bad saves, gets +20 at that level, so really being a monk is only getting you 12.5%, or 1/8th of your total.

3.X D&D is flexible enough that with the right feat and gear choices you can make almost any character nearly impossible to kill. The Monk certainly has some advantages in this regard - improved evasion and such - but they aren't overwhelming. More importantly, maximizing defense has very limited utility in D&D because there are very few established tanking mechanics. If you can't output a reasonable amount of damage then monsters can safely ignore you and go after actual threats. Intelligent monsters absolutely should. Heck you can't even use your body to physically block if you can't output damage, because an enemy can safely move through you if the price of an AoO is merely a light graze (though by level 17 tactical positioning shouldn't matter much anyway).

[NigelWalmsley]

However the balance point for published adventures, especially the many PF adventure paths, seems to have a consensus at around Tier 3.

The balance point for published adventures doesn't really map well onto the tier system. It's less about how powerful or versatile the PCs are (as at most levels of optimization, the different between a Warblade and a Wizard in combat is not that big) and more about being willing to stay on the rails. And while there are certainly character abilities that will let you break off the rails, they are equally vulnerable to simply getting off the rails and deciding to do something else with your time. What you need to do to balance adventure paths is not so much any particular set of nerfs or buffs as simply a gentleman's agreement to stay on the rails.

[Florian]

@Mechalich/NigelWalmsley:

I actually see that a bit differently. Based on the format, APs and modules only focus on the tactical level.
So you basically only need a very short list of abilities, most of the tactical and reactive kind, to successfully "beat" any given AP.

In a sense, you could use all your knowledge and pour it into a "Generic Adventurer" class, that will be sufficient to handle anything of the standard stuff that will come up. But we will still reach overkill when putting four of these in the same party, because we now have an overabundance of essential resources.

The lesson of Starfinder is not only that you can reduce formerly high spell casters to bard-type casting and they still function well on the tactical level, but that you still require only one of each type.

Overall, I rather think the problem are strategic and proactive abilities, especially when you use them to "solve" problems that are based on tactical challenges.

For example, I think we all know a certain kind of discussion: There is a dungeon crawl of some sort ahead and the players discuss ways to "solve the dungeon".

[Necroticplague]

you can't possibly fix balance without drastically reducing customization.

Yes you can. In fact, increased balance intrinsically allows for more customization, because it would reduce the amount of trap and 'have to' options, both of which would allow for a wider variety of viable customizations.

[Wildstag]

Yes you can. In fact, increased balance intrinsically allows for more customization, because it would reduce the amount of trap and 'have to' options, both of which would allow for a wider variety of viable customizations.

I believe that's somewhat the argument for the design intent of 4E, which is to say "highly customizable characters with a focus on power balance".

[Zanos]

I believe that's somewhat the argument for the design intent of 4E, which is to say "highly customizable characters with a focus on power balance".
The counterargument being that 4e customization isn't very meaningful, because characters wind up very similar regardless of how many variables you push around.

There's a reason it died so quickly.

[NigelWalmsley]

Yes you can. In fact, increased balance intrinsically allows for more customization, because it would reduce the amount of trap and 'have to' options, both of which would allow for a wider variety of viable customizations.

I certainly think that is true, but King seems to have rejected this point, feeling that the choice to be less powerful is a meaningful one that should be supported. There's a sense in which that's true, as if you are willing to suck a whole lot, the option to do that is technically an option that balance eliminates. I think the stronger point is that these things are orthogonal. The game has a lot of stuff in it, but it's not anywhere near the limit for stuff at any particular balance point. You could double the number of classes while reducing the overall power variance, which would increase options by any meaningful definition.


The counterargument being that 4e customization isn't very meaningful, because characters wind up very similar regardless of how many variables you push around.

Also that there wasn't actually that much customization. The fact that everyone is on the same AEDU power schedule means that you could have almost total character customization. If 4e had wanted to, it could've supported people who had any combination of powers with essentially the same ease that it supported the stock Wizards and Rangers of the world. The fact that they did not do that always struck me as somewhat bizarre. It's like if instead of the Sorcerer class, 3e had launched with twenty different casters who all had three or four pre-determined picks at each spell level, but were otherwise completely identical to the Sorcerer.

[Elves]

The fact that everyone is on the same AEDU power schedule means that you could have almost total character customization. If 4e had wanted to, it could've supported people who had any combination of powers with essentially the same ease that it supported the stock Wizards and Rangers of the world. The fact that they did not do that always struck8iu79999999999 me as somewhat bizarre. It's like if instead of the Sorcerer class, 3e had launched with twenty different casters who all had three or four pre-determined picks at each spell level, but were otherwise completely identical to the Sorcerer.

Narrow predetermined picks make sense if you're going to really tightly design each class's playstyle. In 4e they didn't do that, and it's not a great model for D&D where customization is expected.

I could see open power choice at each level within your power source (arcane/divine/martial/etc), but with class bonuses or class ability synergies that make some better picks for specific classes. The very system of power sources with one class per role per power source kind of suggests that each power source should be one class, with role being a subclass.

Alternately, I think it would have gone a long way to just make all of a class's powers be open picks within each tier, rather than limited by level (possibly with separate 1st level lists and 30th-level capstone lists). Heroic daily powers, paragon daily powers, etc.

[Florian]

The counterargument being that 4e customization isn't very meaningful, because characters wind up very similar regardless of how many variables you push around.

There's a reason it died so quickly.

Still, there is a lot to learn from 4E, in both directions.

As I see it, the core design decisions were actually rock solid.

Classes are geared towards tactical combat only, with abilities that are roughly equal in effectiveness.
The move away from "sword vs. spell" to "power and ritual" managed to bridge the M/C divide.

But then again, I was always reminded on Earthdawn when playing 4E. Adepts there are equally focussed on their main (and possibly secondary) Archetype. While, say, Archer is a fixed choice, the approach towards customization was better. Go for strong core abilities and weak special moves? Develop a strong special move? Attack or Utility?

[Lucas Yew]

Slightly related point; probably my biggest wish in slaughtering a sacred cow of D&Dism would be killing the Thief and having the Warrior absorb it. Is the new "gestalt" class OP? Howdy no, I would NEVER think so (3.X-wise, it would still be something like a Tier 4 in that unofficial system, due to the limits of gear dependency and most skills' scope in dependency).


(...) why not just balance them by level? If a 7th level Wizard and a 12th level Fighter are balanced, why not just change the Fighter progression?

Always this, my modus operandi in handling Class(equivalent)-XP(equivalent) system balancing.

[Lans]

Slightly related point; probably my biggest wish in slaughtering a sacred cow of D&Dism would be killing the Thief and having the Warrior absorb it. Is the new "gestalt" class OP? Howdy no, I would NEVER think so (3.X-wise, it would still be something like a Tier 4 in that unofficial system, due to the limits of gear dependency and most skills' scope in dependency).


Two classes, magic and mundane, mundane is mega-gestalt, and the magic is heavily multiclassed. Sounds like this could be balance-able in the abstract.

[NigelWalmsley]

I think if you are going to have only two classes, you might as well just bite the bullet and have one class. Which might be a reasonable life choice, but is not really compatible with D&D. In D&D you genuinely want to have multiple classes, both magical and martial. And that's quite doable. There's no reason the Knight can't get enough diplomacy and courtly contacts to provide a similar level of utility to what the Sorcerer is doing at low levels. You just have to accept that he's going to turn into a Dragonrider or Angel Knight at high levels.

[RexDart]

My DM once considered reducing the number of classes for his campaign to 6:

Arcane Prepared Caster
Arcane Spontaneous Caster
Divine Prepared Caster
Divine Spontaneous Caster
Fighter
Rogue

Or maybe just 5, with "Non-Magic Guy" as the last class.

Then just calling pretty much every existing class feature a Feat and throwing all of them into one enormous pile that would be available to everyone.

Lots and lots of theoretical and practical problems with the idea, of course - like determining how many "neo-feats" characters get and when (obviously, they'd have to have many more feats than in the current system), and perhaps most important, how do you make it usable for players?

But there's a certain appeal to the concept. Want to be, e.g., an unarmed combat specialist who occasionally casts arcane spells without a spell book, and can use Sneak Attack and Rage? Well, feel free - go for it!

[Elves]

At a level where the classes are that generic (full bab/partial bab/partial caster/full caster), it's really a freeform system and you're probably better off shedding what vestiges of the class system remain.

IMO, the class system isn't great at being a "universal" system, and is at its best when it isn't shy about the fact that it depicts specific archetypes, with the answer to the things it doesn't cover being, make a new class or class variant for that.

[Lord Raziere]

At a level where the classes are that generic (full bab/partial bab/partial caster/full caster), it's really a freeform system and you're probably better off shedding what vestiges of the class system remain.

IMO, the class system isn't great at being a "universal" system, and is at its best when it isn't shy about the fact that it depicts specific archetypes, with the answer to the things it doesn't cover being, make a new class or class variant for that.

Agreed. DnD is not universal, refluffing arguments for it specifically just never sat well with me and I'm pretty the only reason people want others to refluff so much is so they can save money on books. which is not a bad thing but DnD is not the system for saving money either, because there other systems better suited to doing more with less, while DnD is specifically made to make people buy splats to be specific about things capabilities, mean while there are a few systems I can point to where you can endlessly make things to do with the core books without anything more, so much so they don't really have many splatbooks because their core is already so flexible.

now one can argue DnD with enough splatbooks is universal, but the flaw of that is that it is not Core-Universal. which is what I think is really meant by a universal system. DnD is only Splat-dependent-universal, because it relies on things outside its core books to make it so, and thus a weaker universal system as a result.

[Lans]

I think if you are going to have only two classes, you might as well just bite the bullet and have one class. Which might be a reasonable life choice, but is not really compatible with D&D. In D&D you genuinely want to have multiple classes, both magical and martial. And that's quite doable. There's no reason the Knight can't get enough diplomacy and courtly contacts to provide a similar level of utility to what the Sorcerer is doing at low levels. You just have to accept that he's going to turn into a Dragonrider or Angel Knight at high levels.

It was a joke on the idea that in order to balance Magic vs Mundane you just need to gestalt all of the Mundane classes and have the Magic side just multiclass through all of them.

[martixy]

I'm sure someone's mentioned it in the 4 pages so far, but I'll reiterate just in case.

3.x is broken and that's okay

(This has a name: The Snowbluff axiom, and I quote:
All gaming systems should be terribly flawed and exploitable if you want everyone to be happy with them. This allows for a wide variety of power levels for games for different levels of players.)

[Necroticplague]

I'm sure someone's mentioned it in the 4 pages so far, but I'll reiterate just in case.

3.x is broken and that's okay

(This has a name: The Snowbluff axiom, and I quote:)

Always struck me as a terribly uninformed concept. After all, there are other ways of determining power level of characters besides taking advantage of poor balance: it's called playing at different levels. If you want gritty, low power, you play at low levels. If you want practically superhero-like might, you play high levels. Thus, any game with a character progression system doesn't need to have gaping holes in it for a wide variety of power levels to be supported. All deciding to have power level be determined by imbalance does is allow for some people to end up feeling like **** when miscommunication results in differing ones all present in one place, or when the concept desired isn't supported at the power level desired.

[NigelWalmsley]

But there's a certain appeal to the concept. Want to be, e.g., an unarmed combat specialist who occasionally casts arcane spells without a spell book, and can use Sneak Attack and Rage? Well, feel free - go for it!

Sure, I totally understand the appeal of that. But is preserving the Arcane/Divine and Prepared/Spontaneous distinctions really worth it at that point? In practice, those distinctions are mostly that Divine Spellcasting is better than Arcane Spellcasting (because you can cast in armor), and that Prepared Casting is better than Spontaneous Casting (because you get new spells sooner).


now one can argue DnD with enough splatbooks is universal, but the flaw of that is that it is not Core-Universal. which is what I think is really meant by a universal system. DnD is only Splat-dependent-universal, because it relies on things outside its core books to make it so, and thus a weaker universal system as a result.

Honestly, there are very few truly universal systems. They tend to fall into one of two categories. Some are ruleslight games that can model anything by virtue of not modeling things in any particular detail. Munchausen can tell any kind of story, but the game where you're low-level crooks in Prohibition era New York is going to work exactly the same as the one where you're Primarch-ripoffs is not-WH40k. Others can model a variety of settings, but tend to work in a specific way in all of them. GURPS can do anything from Star Trek to Game of Thrones to Person of Interest, but it tends to fall apart when you try to get it to model characters that are substantially more powerful than regular people.


Always struck me as a terribly uninformed concept. After all, there are other ways of determining power level of characters besides taking advantage of poor balance: it's called playing at different levels.

Hit the nail right on the head. The game already has a way of telling you whether or not the players are supposed to be able to fight a Balor: it's called level. All Snowbluff-style proposals do is obscure that and, ironically, make it harder to support a variety of playstyles. If we could all just accept that Conan was a 6th or 4th or 10th level character, rather than insisting that he can totally scale up to 20th level, it would be very easy to support games with Conan in them. They would just be 6th level games. And that would be fine, because if you want to play Conan you don't want to go on plane-hopping, god-killing adventures, because Conan doesn't do that. Whereas now the Barbarian class insists it's Conan at ever level, so it's entirely possible to show up to a 20th level game expecting your enemies to be "a snake Wizard and his goons" instead of "the legions of hell".

[martixy]

Thus, any game with a character progression system doesn't need to have gaping holes in it for a wide variety of power levels to be supported.
Can you back up that statement? Because I can point you to 3.5 vs 5e in support of mine.
(I will elaborate with specifics if need be, but given the forum we're in, I'm hoping I don't need to.)

Do offer specifics if you venture outside D&D(and PF) however, I have limited experience with other systems. D&D has been my main squeeze for forever.



All deciding to have power level be determined by imbalance does is allow for some people to end up feeling like **** when miscommunication results in differing ones all present in one place, or when the concept desired isn't supported at the power level desired.

This reads like broken english to me and I don't understand what is being said. Could you please rephrase?

[Darg]

Does Conan rage? He seems more like an AD&D fighter to me with outrageous rolls on his stats.

I don't think there is a ruleset that can't be broken. 3.x is not an exception. Being broken and unbalanced are two separate issues.

I think the underlying issue in 3.x is how mundane classes tend to not change much at all going from level 1-20. You are still going to be hacking your way to victory. Spells give a much broader approach to lead to an outcome more favorable for the party.

Mundanes tend to progress at the same rate as creatures which in general keeps combat at nearly the same level. Spells tend to progress at the same rate for DCs and get even better with stronger effects and can cast them much more often. Tier 1 classes have effectively 0 dead levels and each level gives a powerful effect. At the near opposite of the spectrum you have the fighter with 9 dead levels and 11 levels where the bonuses 95% of the time are 5% or less increases in effectiveness in a single facet when there are tens of facets to consider. The game is unbalanced, but in a swords vs modern guns sort of way. Heck, the progression comparison feels like it mimics how the real world developed technology in a compressed format.

That said, I think the biggest problem with mundane combat is really that a lot of the special things you can do have a counter built right into your own action. Attempt to trip a guy the same size as you? Not only do they have a non-trivial chance at not being tripped, but they have a free trip attempt against you which makes being a skilled martial artist more dangerous than it actually should be. That's not even including the free AoO the the opponent receives if you don't invest in an especially expensive feat for these special attacks. Your enemies already don't have to worry about their limited resources so DMs don't normally take into account the mindset of creatures who like to keep their trump cards. They just have to bring their all to wipe out your most most precious resource, hp.

[martixy]

Does Conan rage? He seems more like an AD&D fighter to me with outrageous rolls on his stats.

I don't think there is a ruleset that can't be broken. 3.x is not an exception. Being broken and unbalanced are two separate issues.

I think the underlying issue in 3.x is how mundane classes tend to not change much at all going from level 1-20. You are still going to be hacking your way to victory. Spells give a much broader approach to lead to an outcome more favorable for the party.

Mundanes tend to progress at the same rate as creatures which in general keeps combat at nearly the same level. Spells tend to progress at the same rate for DCs and get even better with stronger effects and can cast them much more often. Tier 1 classes have effectively 0 dead levels and each level gives a powerful effect. At the near opposite of the spectrum you have the fighter with 9 dead levels and 11 levels where the bonuses 95% of the time are 5% or less increases in effectiveness in a single facet when there are tens of facets to consider. The game is unbalanced, but in a swords vs modern guns sort of way. Heck, the progression comparison feels like it mimics how the real world developed technology in a compressed format.

That said, I think the biggest problem with mundane combat is really that a lot of the special things you can do have a counter built right into your own action. Attempt to trip a guy the same size as you? Not only do they have a non-trivial chance at not being tripped, but they have a free trip attempt against you which makes being a skilled martial artist more dangerous than it actually should be. That's not even including the free AoO the the opponent receives if you don't invest in an especially expensive feat for these special attacks. Your enemies already don't have to worry about their limited resources so DMs don't normally take into account the mindset of creatures who like to keep their trump cards. They just have to bring their all to wipe out your most most precious resource, hp.

This made something click in my brain.

Problem with mundane combat is, it trades increased failure rate for more resource (i.e. a spell is expended, but you can keep tripping until you succeed).
But it fails to account for the action economy. Spells are just so much more efficient there.

This is why Tome of Battle meshes so well with the rest of D&D - it brings martials on the same playing field of more limited resource but better effect.

It also suggests avenues for improvement. You take things in one of two ways - the ToB way for martials, or tune spells to work well with the action economy of a regular fighter.

[Boci]

Always struck me as a terribly uninformed concept. After all, there are other ways of determining power level of characters besides taking advantage of poor balance: it's called playing at different levels. If you want gritty, low power, you play at low levels. If you want practically superhero-like might, you play high levels. Thus, any game with a character progression system doesn't need to have gaping holes in it for a wide variety of power levels to be supported. All deciding to have power level be determined by imbalance does is allow for some people to end up feeling like **** when miscommunication results in differing ones all present in one place, or when the concept desired isn't supported at the power level desired.

Those aren't the same though. Comparing a level 4 fire theme sorcerer to a 4th level elven generalist domain wizard is not the same as comparing a 4th level fire themed sorceror to a 12th level fire themes sorceror. Those are two very different ways of adjusting power levels and the second is not a substitute for the first.

JaronK has a pretty good example for the cool story telling telling potential of different power levels within classes:

A game of casters, cleric, druid, wizard, all trying their best to be unkillable and dominate the land. Then, in the sequal compaign, the players were warblades, factotums and advanced casters, in the land dominated by their former characters, trying to end their reigh.

That is a really cool story set up you would miss out on if classes were balanced against each other.

[NigelWalmsley]

Can you back up that statement? Because I can point you to 3.5 vs 5e in support of mine.

Sure. The Wizard and the Cleric are balanced at 1st level and at 13th level. They have different amounts of power and play in different ways at those levels. QED.


This reads like broken english to me and I don't understand what is being said. Could you please rephrase?

If the system is imbalanced, people will make different assumptions about the balance point of a given campaign. This leads to conflict and hurt feeling when those assumptions collide. Whereas if the system is balanced, and that balance point is understood, it's much easier to make clear and informed decisions about he balance point of a particular campaign.


I think the underlying issue in 3.x is how mundane classes tend to not change much at all going from level 1-20. You are still going to be hacking your way to victory. Spells give a much broader approach to lead to an outcome more favorable for the party.

The underlying issue is mundane classes. Full stop. If one guy has the power of "breaking the laws of physics" and the other guy has the power of "sword", you can't have a game that progresses as much as 3e does and maintain any kind of balance. It's not that high level 3e is past the limits of what 3e's Fighter and Rogue could contribute it, it's that it's past the point where any mundane character can hope to remain relevant.


Those aren't the same though. Comparing a level 4 fire theme sorcerer to a 4th level elven generalist domain wizard is not the same as comparing a 4th level fire themed sorceror to a 12th level fire themes sorceror. Those are two very different ways of adjusting power levels and the second is not a substitute for the first.

Yes, one of them is orthogonal to power level and one of them is not. There's no reason "Fire Sorcerer" needs to be weaker than "Generalist Wizard" for the concept to work. Indeed, one might reasonably imagine setups in which it was stronger, because the Fire Sorcerer had picked up a bunch of fire-based synergy effects, while the Generalist Wizard was relying on the base versions of his spells.


That is a really cool story set up you would miss out on if classes were balanced against each other.

Why? "The big bad is your old character" seems like it has absolutely zero relation to how balanced character classes are.

[Boci]

Yes, one of them is orthogonal to power level and one of them is not. There's no reason "Fire Sorcerer" needs to be weaker than "Generalist Wizard" for the concept to work. Indeed, one might reasonably imagine setups in which it was stronger, because the Fire Sorcerer had picked up a bunch of fire-based synergy effects, while the Generalist Wizard was relying on the base versions of his spells.

Indeed, it would be conceivable to have things reversed. And either way, it would allow for 2 different gaming opportunities, both at 4th level.

There is also a reason why an elven generalist would be stronger than a sorceror: they study, sorcerors don't. Wizards can make themselves stronger by studying more and harder, sorcerors magic comes from the blood, they have little influence over how powerful it manifests. Certainly not the only way you can do it, but it is explainable in game.


Why? "The big bad is your old character" seems like it has absolutely zero relation to how balanced character classes are.

Because if the classes are balanced, the match up is different. You then have to have the villains be higher level, but even then, the warblade who is 4 levels higher than the party, isn't doing that much more than the party's warblade. They have some new maneuvres, hit harder, do stuff a bit better, but they're the same class, same power scale.

By contrast a party of a warblade, factotum, dread necromancer and bard going up against an optimized wizard, that is two different levels of play clashing, and makes for a very different feel to the game. If you want to have "the villains are the same as us, just a little better so we have to work together", you can use classes of the same calibre, that's not going away with a wide power range, but it does also give you other options.

[NigelWalmsley]

Indeed, it would be conceivable to have things reversed. And either way, it would allow for 2 different gaming opportunities, both at 4th level.

You're missing the point. What allow for different gaming opportunities isn't that one character or the other is more powerful. It's that they are different. The Fire Sorcerer has a variety of different blasting effects, and maybe some secondary fire magic based on smoke, summoning fire monsters, or emotion control. The Generalist Wizard has a wide range of magical effects that do a variety of different things, requiring him to adapt more specifically to particular encounters. Neither setup has to be better than the other for them both to be different.


There is also a reason why an elven generalist would be stronger than a sorceror: they study, sorcerors don't. Wizards can make themselves stronger by studying more and harder, sorcerors magic comes from the blood, they have little influence over how powerful it manifests. Certainly not the only way you can do it, but it is explainable in game.

Yes, one could imagine that Wizards are higher level than Sorcerers as a general rule. Of course, we could equally imagine that having the blood of dragons running in your veins causes a natural aptitude for magic that makes it easier for Sorcerers to advance.


that is two different levels of play clashing

"We can't possibly have level regulate power, because then we couldn't have clashes between different levels of power!"

Think about the words that you are saying. Can you see why I think your position is absurd?

[Boci]

You're missing the point. What allow for different gaming opportunities isn't that one character or the other is more powerful. It's that they are different. The Fire Sorcerer has a variety of different blasting effects, and maybe some secondary fire magic based on smoke, summoning fire monsters, or emotion control. The Generalist Wizard has a wide range of magical effects that do a variety of different things, requiring him to adapt more specifically to particular encounters. Neither setup has to be better than the other for them both to be different.

Neither setup has to be better, but one of them being better does introduce another dimension in which they can be different. Its also worth noting elven generalist isn't automatic better than a sorceror. I said elven generalist domain wizard, which was short for a optimizaed one, but you could also take an elven generalist and have them be interested in collecting all fire spells, after all they do appear in multiple schoold.


Yes, one could imagine that Wizards are higher level than Sorcerers as a general rule. Of course, we could equally imagine that having the blood of dragons running in your veins causes a natural aptitude for magic that makes it easier for Sorcerers to advance.

Yes, correct. We could also imagine them coming out roughly the same. Any of those 3 scanrios can work in universe.


"We can't possibly have level regulate power, because then we couldn't have clashes between different levels of power!"

Think about the words that you are saying. Can you see why I think your position is absurd?

Well, you see the second "level" was common english level, not D&D level. If that's confusing you, here, let me fix it:

By contrast a party of a warblade, factotum, dread necromancer and bard going up against an optimized wizard, that is two different realms of play clashing.

Is that clear now? The PCs aren't going to be the BBEG in a few levels, they're a seperate calibre, on different vectors. Plus there's everything leveling entails if that's your only way to regulate power (hp, BAB, skill points and rank cap).

[Batcathat]

Having classes of very different power wouldn't have been the worst idea, if they had done it intentionally, openly and consistently (they might've done the first but clearly not the latter two). "Here are a bunch of classes if you (eventually) wanna be ridiculously powerful and here are a different bunch if you just wanna be kinda badass without reshaping the world".

[Boci]

Having classes of very different power wouldn't have been the worst idea, if they had done it intentionally, openly and consistently (they might've done the first but clearly not the latter two). "Here are a bunch of classes if you (eventually) wanna be ridiculously powerful and here are a different bunch if you just wanna be kinda badass without reshaping the world".

I can't speak for other people on this but, but certainly I'm not arguing it wouldn't have been better if this class disapirty had been intentional. But it (almost certainly) wasn't, and yet we still have it. So its worth discussion the pitfalls this can cause, and the opportunities it gives compared to a game with better class balance.

[NigelWalmsley]

Neither setup has to be better, but one of them being better does introduce another dimension in which they can be different.

Sure. They could also vary in "number of calculus problems required to use your abilities" or "dollars you must pay to the DM each session" or "times the player to the left gets to punch you in the face". There are lots of things we could do. As it happens, we don't do most of them. You need a much stronger defense than "this is possible" for your argument to be worth anyone's time.


Is that clear now?

It's not that I didn't understand you. It's that if you've reached the point where your argument for something being insufficient literally uses the word for that thing, you should take some time to consider that your argument might not actually be very good. You are correct that the Warblade is worse than the Wizard. That's totally true. What you have not explained is how fixing that stops us from having Wizard BBEGs.

[Boci]

You are correct that the Warblade is worse than the Wizard. That's totally true. What you have not explained is how fixing that stops us from having Wizard BBEGs.

First you'd have to quote me saying that, which you can't because I never did.

Now what I did talk about is the feeling of a specific scenario, whereby the different calibre of classes used in game one vs. game two contribute to the atmosphere. If all class are balanced, and so the BBEG party of wizard, cleric, rogue and fighter, reroll as the hero party as of a sorceror, druid, spellthief and barbarian, that absolutly works, class disparity isn't needed for this set up, but if the classes all in the same realm powerwise, then the villains and heroes are more similar. This isn't bad, but it is the only option baring DM fiat if classes are balanced.

However, classes are not balanced, so the game can be set up to go from the BBEG party of druid, cleric, wizard, spell erudite into warblade, factotum, bard, dread necromancer. Now right off the bat there is a marked difference between the heroes and the villains. Not only are the villains level 16 or something whilst the heroes are back to 1 or 2, but also their classes in different realms of what they can do. This is not the only way to run this, but can you really not see how the ability to emphasize difference between the game where the PCs become the villains and the game where the PCs are the heroes is a neat feature?

[NigelWalmsley]

Now what I did talk about is the feeling of a specific scenario, whereby the different calibre of classes used in game one vs. game two contribute to the atmosphere.

Yes, by having one group be at a different power level than the other. What you failed to do, and continue to fail to do, is to explain why a different actual level is insufficient to produce this outcome.


then the villains and heroes are more similar.

Why? Are Warmage and Binder (same tier) more similar than Warmage and Sorcerer (different tiers)? Of course not. The latter are far more similar than the former. Because being at the same power level has essentially nothing to do with how similar classes are.

[Boci]

Why? Are Warmage and Binder (same tier) more similar than Warmage and Sorcerer (different tiers)? Of course not.

Depends on how you measure. In terms of fighting them? Yes, they can be. If the sorceror is optimized opens with great arcane fushion, for wings of fury and rapid summon monster 6, then when the rogue shoots them in the side with a dragonbile bolt casts ruin delver's fortune to negate the poison...

...then yes, the party may well feel that the warmage and binder they fought beforehand did feel more similar to eachother than the BBEG they are fighting now. And fighting a 20th level warmage rather than a 16th level one is not going to equal how an optimized sorceror can play.

[Elves]

The underlying issue is mundane classes. Full stop. If one guy has the power of "breaking the laws of physics" and the other guy has the power of "sword", you can't have a game that progresses as much as 3e does and maintain any kind of balance. It's not that high level 3e is past the limits of what 3e's Fighter and Rogue could contribute it, it's that it's past the point where any mundane character can hope to remain relevant.

How credibly can you even call these guys mundanes at 20th level? Arguably being able to walk naked into a room of 200 1st-level guards with swords and armor and kill them all is just as much "breaking the laws of physics" as a spellcaster. Better to just admit that realistic and gritty games are the province of low levels, and include robust E6-style rules for different levels of play.

[Darg]

This made something click in my brain.

Problem with mundane combat is, it trades increased failure rate for more resource (i.e. a spell is expended, but you can keep tripping until you succeed).
But it fails to account for the action economy. Spells are just so much more efficient there.

"Increased failure rate for more resource," I wish I could have said it as well. You also pay a higher price just to become just a little better. Another reason spells are superior is that there is a choice between 3 different saves to target. Mundane special attacks only ever target one: strength checks (which favor the defender as they get to use the higher of strength or dexterity) or fortitude saves (the most common and the creatures with higher saves are generally frontliners that prevent mundane movement).


This is why Tome of Battle meshes so well with the rest of D&D - it brings martials on the same playing field of more limited resource but better effect.

It also suggests avenues for improvement. You take things in one of two ways - the ToB way for martials, or tune spells to work well with the action economy of a regular fighter.

I'd say tune combat instead. Allow a readied attack as part of a full attack, not just a readied action. Remove the special attack AoO from your target baseline and counter attempt. It's not like a mundane character is lacking options, only the usability of those options as they generally hamper your character's survival unless you focus on that one aspect to the detriment of others. Take intimidate as an example. Sure you can do things to upgrade it, but it takes a total of 3 extremely limited resources to make effective: skill points, feats, and opportunity cost (only one target at a time for a standard action). If it were a spell, it would get increases in effectiveness, number of targets, and the possibility of changing the action type as you increase in level.


.The underlying issue is mundane classes. Full stop. If one guy has the power of "breaking the laws of physics" and the other guy has the power of "sword", you can't have a game that progresses as much as 3e does and maintain any kind of balance. It's not that high level 3e is past the limits of what 3e's Fighter and Rogue could contribute it, it's that it's past the point where any mundane character can hope to remain relevant.

Laws of physics is a pretty low bar in a game where the average person is 1HD and an exceptional person can get to be 20x more capable and 100x less likely to be shot with a debilitating/fatal wound.

I would say the options presented to mundane classes are generally as useful as a 4 round cast time spell in combat. Easily enough this is rectified by making several changes in uses of skills, breaking of feat chains/increasing the number of bonus feats, increasing the interactivity of feats with other feats, and flat out buffing special attacks.

[NigelWalmsley]

If the sorceror is optimized opens with great arcane fushion, for wings of fury and rapid summon monster 6, then when the rogue shoots them in the side with a dragonbile bolt casts ruin delver's fortune to negate the poison...

...the Warmage who went full Mailman on them may feel very similar. Certainly, optimized characters feel more powerful than unoptimized ones. But this is entirely unsurprising, and moreover has no bearing whatsoever on anything that might be construed as the point.


Better to just admit that realistic and gritty games are the province of low levels, and include robust E6-style rules for different levels of play.

I certainly would not disagree with that assessment, but there are many people who feel that it is important that the Fighter be "mundane" all the way to 20th level. Despite the fact that as a 20th level character he is expected to fight Demon Lords, travel between worlds, and get raised from the dead on a regular basis. What exactly is a totally mundane character supposed to bring to the table that makes him not feel like a waste of space that could have been a 20th level Wizard, Druid, or even Beguiler?

[Boci]

...the Warmage who went full Mailman on them may feel very similar.

No. The full mailman won't feel similar, that's all or nothing. The full mailman likely kills a party member in their oppening round, but doesn't do much against the dragonbile bolt to their side. By contrast the sorceror doesn't kill a party member with their opening salvo, they summoned and friend and dealt some decent AoE damage to the party with a rider effect, plus negated a gambit to end the fight early.

Those two characters are not the same. Mailman is pretty much the warmages only option, the sorceror has more.

So we're back to the point I started at, the sorceror can make for a very different enemy encounter to the warmage that cannot be replicated by simply upping the later's level.

[Elves]

I certainly would not disagree with that assessment, but there are many people who feel that it is important that the Fighter be "mundane" all the way to 20th level.

My point is that (at least prior to 5e) the inherent number scaling means even a "sword and nothing else" class doesn't let you play 20 levels of Conan, because what you end up with at high levels is an anime character.

[NigelWalmsley]

No. The full mailman won't feel similar, that's all or nothing. The full mailman likely kills a party member in their oppening round, but doesn't do much against the dragonbile bolt to their side.

Why not? A Knowstone of Ruin Delvers Fortune is well within the budget of a Warmage BBEG. And that's far from the only defense against poison someone could have.


Those two characters are not the same. Mailman is pretty much the warmages only option, the sorceror has more.

No it isn't. The Warmage qualifies for Rainbow Servant basically for free (dramatically expanding their spell knowledge). With the help of Eclectic Learning and a Rogue dip, they can get into Prestige Bard (nabbing them a bunch of random utility spells). Assuming you believe in one of the various tricks for counting as a divine spellcaster, they could become a Prestige Ranger or Paladin. They could, as noted previously, buy Knowstones or Runestaves (though this requires them to get UMD somehow, perhaps from Apprentice). With a couple of feats, they could become a Mage of the Arcane Order, entitling them to cast pretty much any spell the Sorcerer can cast. The difference between a Warmage and a Sorcerer is purely spell knowledge, and spell knowledge is pretty easy to get.

Conversely, a Binder can do none of those things. Seems pretty clear to me which pair of classes is more different.


So we're back to the point I started at, the sorceror can make for a very different enemy encounter to the warmage that cannot be replicated by simply upping the later's level.

Ah, but even allowing that, you're still not right. Because the point is not whether they are different, but whether one is better. It's certainly true that a fight where the enemy uses an AoE and summons some minions is different from a fight where they methodically nuke down one party member a round until they're killed. But it's not at all clear to me that the former fight is the harder one. It seems to me that we would have exactly as much diversity if the Mailman Warmage and the Sorcerer were equally powerful, we'd simply be able to use them both in the same game more easily (which, in practice, is an increase in diversity).

[Boci]

Conversely, a Binder can do none of those things. Seems pretty clear to me which pair of classes is more different.

Sure, if the warmage takes the Rainbow Servant PrC it moves up a tier or two to be comparable to the sorceror. Glad you agree with me there about how the higher tier classes allow for different feels when they're used as enemies compared to lower tier ones. Because you know, a Warmage / Rainbow Servant isn't on the same tier as a binder anymore.

[Lord Raziere]

My point is that (at least prior to 5e) the inherent number scaling means even a "sword and nothing else" class doesn't let you play 20 levels of Conan, because what you end up with at high levels is an anime character.

thats because Conan is like.....maybe level 5 or something. Conan as a style of play has certain power limitations. just like how playing say....a police officer has certain power limitations, because generally you operate at the street level in a single city solving crimes within your jurisdiction, but if you start solving problems bigger than that outside your jurisdiction, your not really acting as a police officer anymore, if that makes sense?

like the entire point of Conan is that he is a guy with a certain scope and capabilities doing what he does in a world with certain things and assumptions. going beyond that scope is to go beyond being Conan. like sure you can write crossover stuff, where he encounters things outside of his stories, but it doesn't work as well. every detail about a story is important, because its all designed to fit together and when you start trying to fit parts that weren't designed to be put together, of course its not going work! Conan's world is its own world with its own parts and those parts are all designed to fit into a certain scope that DnD has defined as low level. realistically speaking the best way of representing Conan with d20 is E6, if you want a rough quick fix.

the problem DnD has is that draws from many sources of inspiration....has many parts...but then makes no effort to fit those parts together. for example why do we need both druids AND clerics? there are clerics of nature, but at the same time old myth has always seen gods and spirits as forces of nature, so one or the other could work from a certain perspective and their distinction as classes is needless thematically and thus is more of a mechanical differentiation. but then there is the problem of fighters, rogues and rangers, why can't the fighter sneak attack? why is the rogue limited to such terrible weapons? why can only the ranger know the terrain and the best ways to kill a monster when its useful for all three to know that? wouldn't there be a lot of cross-pollination with these peoples skills, as everyone would use a sneak attack in combat, a rogue would more likely use a sword in combat than a dagger which is horrible for actually fighting people in medieval times: no reach or good way to defend, its only good for hiding. and of course people have long looked at the sorcerer as a superfluous second wizard because DnD can't decide whether it wants to be vancian style book wizardry or conan style sorcery so it puts both parts out there and leaves you to decide whether one or the other exists with the default assumption of some weird hybrid where both do. then it adds the monk which is a third completely different eastern fantasy without bothering to fit it in with the more western archetypes around it. while the paladin is yet a different archetypical chivalric knight fantasy translated into what that means for DnD.

DnD is not a single fantasy nor is it universal, its twelve different fantasies watered down and forced to work with one another without any regard for how these wildly disparate archetypes exist in the same world. With a set up like that, its no wonder why one of the biggest results of DnD is comedy.

[NigelWalmsley]

Sure, if the warmage takes the Rainbow Servant PrC it moves up a tier or two to be comparable to the sorceror. Glad you agree with me there about how the higher tier classes allow for different feels when they're used as enemies compared to lower tier ones. Because you know, a Warmage / Rainbow Servant isn't on the same tier as a binder anymore.

You understand this is actually you agreeing with me, right? That's what's happening here. The Warmage and the Sorcerer can both be optimized to the same power level. The Binder cannot be optimized to that power level. That makes the Binder more different from the Warmage than the Sorcerer is, despite the fact that the Warmage and Binder are in the same tier, while the Warmage and Sorcerer are in different tiers. This proves my initial claim that different power levels are not required for different play patterns. Between this and the whole "level can't possibly mean power level" thing, are you sure you're not just confused about which side you're on?

[Boci]

You understand this is actually you agreeing with me, right? That's what's happening here. The Warmage and the Sorcerer can both be optimized to the same power level.

That's a questionable statement. Yes, you can very specifically build a warmage to roughly equal a sorceror in one aspect, but that's a far cry from them being equal.

Plus you've still changed your origional point. When you raised the point it was:


Why? Are Warmage and Binder (same tier)

Which you have since abandoned in favour of making the warmage equal to the sorceror. You seem to be the one confused, my argument has remained consistent. Whether you make the warmage equal to the binder or the sorceror will influence what kind of encounters you can run with them, and the class will be comparable in power and league to whichever class you try to ape.

You do understand right that if you're optimizing a warmage to the level of a sorceror, its no longer the same tier as a binder? PrC can boost (or dock) a tier level if they are impactful enough.

Also wait a second:


Why not? A Knowstone of Ruin Delvers Fortune is well within the budget of a Warmage BBEG.

How? "Any spontaneous caster can use a knowstone, provided that the spell it includes is on his spell list and he can cast spells of its level." Ruin Delver's Fortune isn't a warmage spell, so no, no it can't unless I'm missing something.

[NigelWalmsley]

Yes, you can very specifically build a warmage to roughly equal a sorceror in one aspect, but that's a far cry from them being equal.

Certainly. There's a very reasonable argument that the Rainbow Warsnake is simply better than the Sorcerer.


Which you have since abandoned in favour of making the warmage equal to the sorceror.

What? My argument is that the Warmage is more similar to the Sorcerer than it is to the Binder, despite being in the same tier as the former and a different tier than the latter. The fact that you can build a Warmage that is like a Sorcerer is evidence of that, unless you want to contend that you can build a Binder that is like a Sorcerer as well. Obviously I could also make arguments about how the Binder and Warmage are different, but I thought it was pretty obvious that spontaneous spellcasting was less like prepared vestiges than it was like spontaneous spellcasting, on the grounds that it is the same as the latter and different from the former. But if you want to debate that as well, I'm prefectly willing to do so.


You do understand right that if you're optimizing a warmage to the level of a sorceror, its no longer the same tier as a binder?

Warmage builds don't change the class's tier, just as the fact that you can build a Sorcerer who knows only Warmage spells, but knows less of them than the Warmage doesn't change its tier.


the class will be comparable in power and league to whichever class you try to ape.

Ah, but that's missing the point. Obviously it will be at the same power level as classes at the same power level. The question is whether it will be mechanically similar. And it seems obvious to me that it is not. What you need to explain is why we can't have a character who is "like a Sorcerer" but as powerful as the Binder is now, or "like a Binder" but as powerful as the Sorcerer is now.


How? "Any spontaneous caster can use a knowstone, provided that the spell it includes is on his spell list and he can cast spells of its level." Ruin Delver's Fortune isn't a warmage spell, so no, no it can't unless I'm missing something.

UMD. As noted in the post. And before you point out that UMD isn't a Warmage class skill, I will point out that you can get it from Apprentice, which is also noted in the post.

[Boci]

Warmage builds don't change the class's tier, just as the fact that you can build a Sorcerer who knows only Warmage spells, but knows less of them than the Warmage doesn't change its tier.

It changes the effective tier of the character in question, not the class. You're saying Pun-Pun is a tier 4 character because paladin is a popular choice to make him and paladins are tier 4. No, Pun-Pun is not tier 4 even though he uses a tier 4 class. The warmage is tier 3 in general, but the specific build that matches a sorceror isn't. You appear to not understand how the tier list works.


What you need to explain is why we can't have a character who is "like a Sorcerer" but as powerful as the Binder is now, or "like a Binder" but as powerful as the Sorcerer is now.

You can have the first, I never described that, its quite easy to build. What you need to understand is that if you build a sorceror to equal to a binder, calling the character tier 2 is uselees and misleading. The class you used to build the character is tier 2, the character's performance will be tier 3.

[NigelWalmsley]

It changes the effective tier of the character in question, not the class.

Sure, but so what? You haven't explained how all this is supposed to impact your point. As I understand it, your thesis is that it is necessary for the Sorcerer and the Binder to be imbalanced for them to feel different, yes? Then that would imply that the Warmage feels more similar to the Binder (whose power level it is closer to) than it does the Sorcerer (whose power level it is farther from). You have yet to explain how this is true. All you've done so far is suggest one way in which a Sorcerer could be different from either character, then complain that it's somehow cheating to build a character who is a Warmage, but is like a Sorcerer, when the entire point of the argument is that you can do that.


You can have the first, I never described that, its quite easy to build.

Okay, now we're getting somewhere. Let's suppose that we do that. How is such a state of affairs less diverse than the one we have currently? It can't be that we've lost whatever it is that the Sorcerer brings to the table, because we've explicitly stated that we kept that. If you are right, and imbalance provides some irreplaceable diversity, we must have lost something in making the Binder balanced with the Sorcerer. What did we lose, and why did we lose it?

[Boci]

Sure, but so what?

So when I say a tier 1 villain party into a tier 3 hero party...isn't the natural assumption that the classes are played in a way that their abilities match the class's typical tier? Do you need the character's full write ups to imagine it?


As I understand it, your thesis is that it is necessary for the Sorcerer and the Binder to be imbalanced for them to feel different, yes?

No that has never been my point, I never said so. My point was different leagues of power within the classes present opportunities that would exist if classes were all balanced (barring a scenario that doesn't currently exist, see below).


Okay, now we're getting somewhere. Let's suppose that we do that. How is such a state of affairs less diverse than the one we have currently?

That is the one we have currently have now. You currently can build a sorceror to operate on a tier similar to a binder, or you can build them to operate above, and you can probablybuild them below too. This imbalance creates more opportunities. The only way to have class balance and retain all these options is to have each class buildable to each tier. Which sounds tricky, but could be feasible.

[NigelWalmsley]

My point was different leagues of power within the classes

Just look how natural this language is! Clearly, level is a totally insufficient concept for conveying the different "power leagues" that classes can be in.


This imbalance creates more opportunities.

What opportunities? Which ones does it create? Because you haven't explained that. You just keep saying "the Wizard is different from the Warblade, therefore we need imbalance for diversity". But the Wizard is also different from the Cleric, and the Warblade is also different from the Warmage. And those pairs of classes are balanced. So what's stopping us from having a thing that is "like the Wizard" and balanced with a different thing that is "like the Warblade"? What do we lose by doing that? That's the question you have to answer, and it's a question you've been diligently avoiding answering.


The only way to have class balance and retain all these options is to have each class buildable to each tier.

Let's talk about this for a second. Because it gets at something we haven't been discussing. Thus far, we've mostly been talking about how your demands for class imbalance are totally unnecessary for achieving the goals of having a variety of characters. This gives us the opportunity to pivot to why they are actually bad.

Suppose we did what you're proposing, or formalized 3e's system of different tiers. Further suppose that we cut things down to just three tiers. That means that instead of the Wizard being one class that is balanced with other classes, it's three classes. T1 Wizard, T2 Wizard, and T3 Wizard. That means writing three times as much stuff. But it doesn't get you three times as many character concepts. You only get Wizard. Effectively what you've done is cut the number of supportable concepts in your game by two thirds. Is there really enough value in your "power realms" demands to justify that?

[Boci]

What opportunities?

"When I play a warmage, I like to cast fireball a lot. I get to add my intelligence modifier to the damage,"

"When I play warmage, I like going Rainbow Savant and getting a a knowstone for ruin delver's fortune to boost my defences,"

Are these two warmages balanced comapred to eachother? No. Are they both valid ways to play? Yes.

So without the imbalance that creates the two different character options here, which one gets cut? That's the oppotunity lost.

[NigelWalmsley]

So without the imbalance that creates the two different character options here, which one gets cut? That's the oppotunity lost.

Why cut either? Why not simply allow them to be balanced? It's certainly true that right now, Rainbow Servant is better than straight Warmage. But that doesn't have to be true. We might have Rainbow Servant follow the table instead of the text, making it at best a side-grade. We might change things so that blasting was substantially more effective, and that Warmages got some nice class features in that area. Who says that those concepts have to be imbalanced to exist? That's what you need to prove, not simply that they are imbalanced now.

[Lord Raziere]

"When I play a warmage, I like to cast fireball a lot. I get to add my intelligence modifier to the damage,"

"When I play warmage, I like going Rainbow Savant and getting a a knowstone for ruin delver's fortune to boost my defences,"

Are these two warmages balanced comapred to eachother? No. Are they both valid ways to play? Yes.

So without the imbalance that creates the two different character options here, which one gets cut? That's the oppotunity lost.

Okay so one is a blaster caster, the other is....Rainbow Servant? okay looked up what that is, this is just a mystic theurge with rainbow wings. I'm pretty sure a more balanced way to make that can be made to do the same basic concept (arcane/divine caster with rainbow wings), and I don't see why you need to be broken on top of that. honestly a divine/arcane hybrid caster concept should probably be its own class balanced against others rather than an outgrowth of other things.

[Boci]

Why cut either? Why not simply allow them to be balanced? It's certainly true that right now, Rainbow Servant is better than straight Warmage. But that doesn't have to be true. We might have Rainbow Servant follow the table instead of the text, making it at best a side-grade. We might change things so that blasting was substantially more effective, and that Warmages got some nice class features in that area. Who says that those concepts have to be imbalanced to exist? That's what you need to prove, not simply that they are imbalanced now.

No I don't. You're talking about something that doesn't exist. Could the thing you describe work? Sure, it could. But also it might not. I'm talking about 3.5, a game that actually exist. Your the one who needs to do the proving, necause your talking about an imaginary scenario. Come on, give me something to visualize it not just vague what ifs X and Y were balanced. Something concrete.


Okay so one is a blaster caster, the other is....Rainbow Servant? okay looked up what that is, this is just a mystic theurge with rainbow wings. I'm pretty sure a more balanced way to make that can be made to do the same basic concept (arcane/divine caster with rainbow wings), and I don't see why you need to be broken on top of that. honestly a divine/arcane hybrid caster concept should probably be its own class balanced against others rather than an outgrowth of other things.

I believe text trumps table, so its actually full casting. It would be balanced if it lost the casting levels like the table said. Or maybe I'm thinking of another PO build...

[NigelWalmsley]

Come on, give me something to visualize it not just vague what ifs X and Y were balanced.

Here's a proposal I saw floating around somewhere for a balanced Rainbow Servant. Can't remember where it's from, but it seems workable:


It would be balanced if it lost the casting levels like the table said. Or maybe I'm thinking of another PO build...

[Boci]

Here's a proposal I saw floating around somewhere for a balanced Rainbow Servant. Can't remember where it's from, but it seems workable:

Okay, and if that is all that is unbalanced about 3.5, congratulations, you fixed it. Let me just check if their are any other issues with the balance...

[Darg]

I must not be understanding something of how warmage and rainbow servant work together. Warmage says that the warmage only knows the spells on his class list. Rainbow servant gives the ability to learn and cast cleric spells. Warmage can only learn spells through advanced learning. Nothing was said about adding the spells on the cleric list to the other caster's list. How is this a benefit when warmage can't actually cast the spells when they aren't known spells?

[Boci]

I must not be understanding something of how warmage and rainbow servant work together. Warmage says that the warmage only knows the spells on his class list. Rainbow servant gives the ability to learn and cast cleric spells. Warmage can only learn spells through advanced learning. Nothing was said about adding the spells on the cleric list to the other caster's list. How is this a benefit when warmage can't actually cast the spells when they aren't known spells?

http://minmaxforum.com/index.php?topic=2660.0

[NigelWalmsley]

Okay, and if that is all that is unbalanced about 3.5, congratulations, you fixed it. Let me just check if their are any other issues with the balance...

While you're looking, see if you can find the new resting place for those goalposts.

[Boci]

While you're looking, see if you can find the new resting place for those goalposts.

Not shifting any goalpost. I've been talking about 3.5 this whole time. The real, existing 3.5. If you want to talk about a hypothetical completly balanced but just as diverse 3.5, fine, but that doesn't exist, so I'm not sure how I'm suppose to comment on its merits and flaws. Not shifting any goalposts, they're right there where they were at the start.

[NigelWalmsley]

No, this is what you said:


So without the imbalance that creates the two different character options here, which one gets cut? That's the oppotunity lost.

I (actually you) demonstrated that you don't have to lose one of those options. Those were the goalposts. If you instead want an entire fully functional game, that's moving the goalposts. It's also completely goddamn absurd, and I cannot possibly believe you don't realize that.

[Boci]

No, this is what you said:



I (actually you) demonstrated that you don't have to lose one of those options. Those were the goalposts. If you instead want an entire fully functional game, that's moving the goalposts. It's also completely goddamn absurd, and I cannot possibly believe you don't realize that.

Yes, it is completly absurd what you are talking about, but that's what a balanced 3.5 requirs. Fixing all the imbalance. Or at least the vast majority of it. Is it monumental, but until its done, we can't talk about what is and isn't lost by removing the imbalance. Goalposts still aren't shifted on my end, you're not talking about an existing game.

[NigelWalmsley]

we can't talk about what is and isn't lost by removing the imbalance.

Yes, we can. If you believe we lose something by moving to a balanced system, you should be able to explain what that is. You repeated failure to do so is tantamount to an admission that there is, in fact, nothing lost. As we can see by the fact that when you provided an example of something that was lost, your very next post was explaining how we didn't need to lose that thing. It's the "levels of play" thing all over again.

[Boci]

Yes, we can. If you believe we lose something by moving to a balanced system, you should be able to explain what that is.

The array of options across multiple power points 3.5 currently offers. Is it possible you could keep them and have a balanced system? Sure, I guess. I can't dissprove the possibility, but I'm skeptical of how feasible it is. People have been homebrewing 3.5 pretty much since it game out, 17 years ago, and unless it escaped my notice, this hypothetical balanced but equally diverse 3.5 has yet to materialize.

So rather than hold out for a currently not existing game I feel fairly confident stating at this point won't ever arrieve, I'd rather talk about the actual 3.5 we have right now and its merits and flaws. Like how different class teirs can let explore a similar theme character development from 1st level to 20th, yet have the journey be of different scope due to the different balance points you choose for the two different characters. Or how it can catter to multiple playstyles based on power, which through level adjustment alone would be akward to recapture.

[NigelWalmsley]

The array of options across multiple power points 3.5 currently offers.

Again, you have not explained how balance removes options. In fact, when we have talked about concrete examples, you yourself have explained how to avoid that. You have yet to provide a single concrete example of options that are lost by reducing imbalance. I strongly suspect you can't do it, because the trade-off does not meaningfully exist. There's nothing about the Dread Necromancer's death magic that is inherently worse than the Druid's nature magic or inherently better than the Shadowcaster's shadow magic. It's all contingent. You could balance all those classes, and it would increase diversity, because you could play Shadowcasters in parties with Druids and make meaningful contributions.


this hypothetical balanced but equally diverse 3.5 has yet to materialize.

Let's suppose we were having this argument about 20 years ago, just as 3.0 was coming out. There are 11 classes in the PHB, and you think that it's impossible to have that range of options without imbalance. It seems to me that your points would be substantively unchanged, as you've studiously avoided concrete examples. But looking at the problem now, it's clear that it's quite possible to have 11 classes that are reasonably balanced. In fact, the most recent tiering effort has twenty classes in T3 (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?600635). This argument was wrong then. What makes you think it's right now?


So rather than hold out for a currently not existing game

This is a straw man. No one is saying don't play 3e because it's imbalanced. What people are saying is that 3e could be more balanced, and that would be better. And you haven't really done anything to refute that.


Or how it can catter to multiple playstyles based on power, which through level adjustment alone would be akward to recapture.

Except that's wrong. Level adjustments are much better for catering to different power levels, because they are simple and explicit. If you want a character at a particular power level, the most natural possible mechanism for that is level. For all the words you've devoted to this topic, you have yet to provide a single problem that "power realms" solves that "power levels" doesn't.

[Boci]

You could balance all those classes, and it would increase diversity

Maybe you could, maybe you couldn't. I personally will hold out judgement until I see the finished product.


Except that's wrong. Level adjustments are much better for catering to different power levels, because they are simple and explicit. If you want a character at a particular power level, the most natural possible mechanism for that is level. For all the words you've devoted to this topic, you have yet to provide a single problem that "power realms" solves that "power levels" doesn't.

I have repeatedly, you just ignore them. If levels are the only way to cater to different groups, you will run into issues quite quickly. Most obviously, 1-20 now doesn't work. To follow the path of the average wizard, you now have to go presumably 1-16, or are you going 3-16 to allow for a below average option as well? Different tiers allows 3 casters at 3 different balance points to all progress the full 1 to 20 levels.

[Bartmanhomer]

*I'm eating popcorn while watching the balance argument.*

Don't mind me I'm eating popcorn. :biggrin:

[Florian]

Some thoughts:

When it comes to archetypes, there's a major difference between "replication" and "inspiration". Personally, I find replication to be extremely tiresome, no matter whether it´s a fictional character or something from different media, like League of Legends heroes. For example, Conan is one source of inspiration behind the Barbarian class and the class can be used to replicate Conan, but that doesn´t mean that Conan (as a concept) is feasible in a game like D&D/PF beyond the point of pure replication.

For example, PF1 actually has some nice things for martials. My highest level character was taking a Barbarian from 1 to 20 and up to mythic rank 10. My two core concepts for that character were "Failure at Bushido" and "Inspired by Paladins". Basically, she comes from a more primitive tribe and was impressed by Paladins of the Crusade, trying to replicate them, but not understanding what makes them so.

Unlike, say, trying to replicate Conan, my Barbarian didn't really need to hit some kind of "sweet spot" to function and could progress further in power and options without "outgrowing" their base. Is countering magic with you sword, growing to titan size when raging, being able to directly attack any sort of magic beyond the ability of Conan? Certainly. Is it beyond the ability of a high level PF Barbarian? Certainly not.

What I also find curious in this discussion is the misrepresentation of power and style. The whole thing basically only ever makes sense when we also talk about CR/EL and have an honest discussion why that particularly system is a bit broken. Having the BBEG be a group of level 17 Samurai/Ninja/CR17 Monster/Oracle can't be compared to Cleric/Cleric/Wizard/Wizard, with the first optimized towards CR, the later optimized as player characters. The only thing we get out of it, is that the first group functions at CR, whatever that means, while the second group operates above CR, while still counting at CR, because a large part of D&D/PF is being able to optimize your character to function way above the default level.

Apparently, that gets confused with "style". Naturally, when I use a Tiefling Samurai 17 and a Tiefling Cleric (War Domain) 17, I get the same base result of a Tiefling wearing O-Yoroi and wielding a Katana.
Sure, the Cleric is high-powered because of spells, but the Samurai has the archetypical special moves.

[Necroticplague]

Can you back up that statement? Because I can point you to 3.5 vs 5e in support of mine.
(I will elaborate with specifics if need be, but given the forum we're in, I'm hoping I don't need to.)

Do offer specifics if you venture outside D&D(and PF) however, I have limited experience with other systems. D&D has been my main squeeze for forever.
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by offering specifics. After all, we're talking purely theoretically about systems that could be, not systems that are.

But just to expand if it helps: lets say there was some version of 3.5 that was balanced. All level 1 characters are roughly equal in usefulness, regardless of class, and so on for every level. This does not mean one would not be able to build 'high power' characters. It simply means that one would build high-power characters by building high-level characters, instead of just picking the broken classes. Therefore, the 'axiom' that wild imbalances are necessary to support high power and low power is incorrect


This reads like broken english to me and I don't understand what is being said. Could you please rephrase?
Let's say you have a party of people making characters. Since none are psychic, none know the exact power level of the upcoming campaign. So, as a result, you can end up having people making higher-power characters showing up the lower-power ones, simply because of choices made with identical resources. This makes the less useful characters feel irritated because they might as well not be there, or the more useful ones resentful for pulling all the weight. This would not be a possibility if power level was solely as a result of level, which would make the decision of starting level and a clarification of power level one and the same.

[Florian]

@Necroticplague:

And that does not make sense. In a class and level based game, level is power. A 4th level standard build fighter is inferior to a 8th feel standard build fighter, true, here is works, but not o caster builds, tho.

[Necroticplague]

@Necroticplague:

And that does not make sense. In a class and level based game, level is power. A 4th level standard build fighter is inferior to a 8th feel standard build fighter, true, here is works, but not o caster builds, tho.

In the system we have, yes, but there's no reason that casters couldn't have been made equal to others.

[Boci]

In the system we have, yes, but there's no reason that casters couldn't have been made equal to others.

No reason, except for the fact that 17 years of splatbooks and homebrewing didn't really achieve it. There's enough material that you can pick and mix and generally have a diverse set of options for martials and caster for your group to play with at a somewhat equal playing field, but after 17 years, it seems the ship has sailed on 3.5 being balanced as a game. Or at least that's how I feel.

[Darg]

http://minmaxforum.com/index.php?topic=2660.0

That doesn't explain anything.


In the system we have, yes, but there's no reason that casters couldn't have been made equal to others.

Bringing casters down to an equal playing field involves 2 things: separating combat spells from oocombat spells, or flat out nerfing spell capability across the board. I personally don't like either option myself. The other option is to give noncasters more mundane options to accomplish things they should already be able to accomplish considering irl examples.

[Bartmanhomer]

Except that's wrong. Level adjustments are much better for catering to different power levels because they are simple and explicit. If you want a character at a particular power level, the most natural possible mechanism for that is level. For all the words you've devoted to this topic, you have yet to provide a single problem that "power realms" solves that "power levels" doesn't.

Ok, I just finished eating my popcorn and I need a refill. I have a comment about Level Adjustment: I thought Level Adjustment actually make a character weaker. :confused:

[Boci]

That doesn't explain anything.

"That's right, ladies and germs, at tenth level of this class, you add the entire cleric spell list to your spell known!"

That's the interpretation being referenced when people talk about warmage and rainbow savant being a good together.

[Florian]

Ok, I just finished eating my popcorn and I need a refill. I have a comment about Level Adjustment: I thought Level Adjustment actually make a character weaker. :confused:

Context, really.

Think about it: Monsters and CR should always be in relation to a regular group of 4. So a CR4 monster is a standard encounter for 4 level 4 characters and so on. Converting that to the player side, a monster should have a pretty decent head-start over regular race/class combos, because it was designed as such.

That, too, serves to showcase the whole balance problem. When you would always prefer a Pixie Rogue 1 over a Human Rogue 6, then LA seems to work fine. When casting ability always trumps LA; then something is off.

On the other hand, you can also understand LA to be like the handicap in golf. It´s not that big deal when using three different advancement tracks, fast for everything under T3, normal for T3, slow for everything above T3.

[Bartmanhomer]

Context, really.

Think about it: Monsters and CR should always be in relation to a regular group of 4. So a CR4 monster is a standard encounter for 4 levels 4 characters and so on. Converting that to the player side, a monster should have a pretty decent head-start over regular race/class combos because it was designed as such.

That, too, serves to showcase the whole balance problem. When you would always prefer a Pixie Rogue 1 over a Human Rogue 6, then LA seems to work fine. When casting ability always trumps LA; then something is off.

On the other hand, you can also understand LA to be like the handicap in golf. It´s not that big deal when using three different advancement tracks, fast for everything under T3, normal for T3, slow for everything above T3.
Ok. I guess that makes perfect sense. I just refill my popcorn now and FYI it's hot cheese popcorn just to let everybody know. Ok, continue the argument. :smile:

*I'm eating my hot cheese popcorn.*

[Darg]

"That's right, ladies and germs, at tenth level of this class, you add the entire cleric spell list to your spell known!"

That's the interpretation being referenced when people talk about warmage and rainbow savant being a good together.

I asked how it worked considering it says nothing about adding spells to a class list or increasing your known spells. I figured there might be more to it than making a stretch assumption.

[Florian]

I asked how it worked considering it says nothing about adding spells to a class list or increasing your known spells. I figured there might be more to it than making a stretch assumption.

It´s simply bad rules interaction.The PrC opens up three domain lists and finally the entire cleric lists as an option. For a regular Sorcerer or Wizard, that would means options to pick spells known or spells scribed in spell book from. Not all that groundbreaking. The bad interaction happens with fix list casters. They way their speciality is worded, it seems as they act as their whole spell list is "spells known". Now adding more options to their spell list means they also are "known" straight from the point.

[Darg]

It´s simply bad rules interaction.The PrC opens up three domain lists and finally the entire cleric lists as an option. For a regular Sorcerer or Wizard, that would means options to pick spells known or spells scribed in spell book from. Not all that groundbreaking. The bad interaction happens with fix list casters. They way their speciality is worded, it seems as they act as their whole spell list is "spells known". Now adding more options to their spell list means they also are "known" straight from the point.

I understand how domains work. The cleric spell access only says that you gain the ability to learn and cast those spells. It doesn't add them to your class list or your spells known. It stays the cleric's list. A sorcerer still has to learn them on level up. As far as I can tell it just means one can choose to learn spells (if they are capable) from either separate list and gains the innate ability to use magical items with those spells.


Cleric Spell Access: A 10th-level rainbow servant can learn and cast spells from the cleric list, even if they don't appear on the lists of any spellcasting class he has. Such spells are cast as divine spells if they don't appear on the sorcerer/wizard or bard spell lists. This class feature grants access to the spells, but not extra spells per day. The 10th-level rainbow servant can likewise read scrolls with cleric spells on them and use wands and staffs that contain cleric spells.

Compared to how other classes mention adding spells:


Desert Insight: As a member of this class, you gain knowledge of additional spells (see the list below). If you were a caster who previously prepared spells (such as a wizard), you can prepare these spells like any other spell to which you have access. If you are a spontaneous caster (such as a sorcerer), these spells are available to you like any other spell you know. You cannot cast a spell of higher level than the maximum spell level you can cast. These spells become options for you when you gain access to the appropriate spell level.


Planar Binding: Beginning at 2nd level, you can add the following spells to your class spell list and your list of known spells (or your spellbook) at the indicated levels. If you already have one or more of these spells on your class list at a different level, treat it as being of the lower level.

That's what I am not understanding. Cleric Spell Access by itself doesn't say anything about being added to your class list or spells known. To my understanding that would disqualify warmage from this benefit. Unless it hinges on the "cast" part of the description. That is easily dismissed as the ability to cast a spell doesn't necessitate knowledge of the spell. An example of that is Anyspell. If it did, one feat gives any arcane caster the ability to know any 5th or lower spell.

[martixy]

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by offering specifics. After all, we're talking purely theoretically about systems that could be, not systems that are.

But just to expand if it helps: lets say there was some version of 3.5 that was balanced. All level 1 characters are roughly equal in usefulness, regardless of class, and so on for every level. This does not mean one would not be able to build 'high power' characters. It simply means that one would build high-power characters by building high-level characters, instead of just picking the broken classes. Therefore, the 'axiom' that wild imbalances are necessary to support high power and low power is incorrect

I generally agree with that.


Let's say you have a party of people making characters. Since none are psychic, none know the exact power level of the upcoming campaign. So, as a result, you can end up having people making higher-power characters showing up the lower-power ones, simply because of choices made with identical resources. This makes the less useful characters feel irritated because they might as well not be there, or the more useful ones resentful for pulling all the weight. This would not be a possibility if power level was solely as a result of level, which would make the decision of starting level and a clarification of power level one and the same.

Tnx for elaborating.

All this makes me think I should revise my statement to make it clearer. Something more like: 3.x is imbalanced and that's okay.

The thesis statement here is that balance does not have to be the ultimate goal.

It is a nice thing to chase and some measure is certainly required, and having more of it does help in a lot of situations. But perfect balance, or even great balance is not a prerequisite for success or enjoyment. 3.x has done quite well with mediocre balance.

Meaningful choice is what makes a system fun and enjoyable for me to play. You can have one character solve 80% of an encounter and another 20%. That is by no means balanced, but as long as the 20% character can still contribute in a way that supports the character's fantasy, it will still be a fun character to play. You only need enough balance to make sure everyone can contribute something unique, not contribute equally.

This ends the topic of balance, which seems to be at the forefront of this thread.


However when I spoke about power level, there was something else I meant. 3.x supports a power level range which allows games ranging from gritty survival adventures to plane-hopping, god-killing epics. More importantly it supports the transition between these styles. 5e for example does not. This is a direct result of the primary design philosophy behind the math of that edition. WotC calls it "Bounded accuracy (https://olddungeonmaster.com/2014/08/30/bounded-accuracy/)". Here is another nice article (https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Understanding_Bounded_Accuracy_(5e_Guideline)) on the topic. My answer to the question halfway through is no, which is the reason I still like 3.5e more.
P.S. I do love the design goal of bounded accuracy, just not how it's implemented. I see it as a crutch for the undisciplined DM.

[Darg]

Scaling AC is a problem and scaling AB is a problem. As it is, like your second article mentioned it is generally ment to be a 1:1 50% chance to hit with variations on an equal HD creature. It's fine by itself, but becomes a visual issue when you realize that spells can hit a weak save that transforms a 75% chance of failure to a 25% of failure. AC and AB have options like that, but they generally require 2 actions and even then can't make use of their full attack.

[Bartmanhomer]

I have repeatedly, you just ignore them. If levels are the only way to cater to different groups, you will run into issues quite quickly. Most obviously, 1-20 now doesn't work. To follow the path of the average wizard, you now have to go presumably 1-16, or are you going 3-16 to allow for a below-average option as well? Different tiers allow 3 casters at 3 different balance points to all progress the full 1 to 20 levels. What about epic characters? (Level 21+) :confused:

[Lans]

Scaling AC is a problem and scaling AB is a problem. As it is, like your second article mentioned it is generally ment to be a 1:1 50% chance to hit with variations on an equal HD creature. It's fine by itself, but becomes a visual issue when you realize that spells can hit a weak save that transforms a 75% chance of failure to a 25% of failure. AC and AB have options like that, but they generally require 2 actions and even then can't make use of their full attack.

I like the idea of changing the saves to 1/2 level with +2 if they are good saves.


you can't possibly fix balance without drastically reducing customization.

Doesn't this depends on what you mean by 'fix'? 4th, 5th and pathfinder where all 'fixes' to this system and one of them didn't seem to limit customization options to much.

[Boci]

What about epic characters? (Level 21+) :confused:

Epic level is from a 3.0 splatbook, not everyone uses it and there are mixed views on how well it works. Besides, it still means you can't start from level 1 if your average or high power, since if level is the only way to regulate character power 1 needs to be reserved for the low power characters, unless level 0 and -1 are also created.

[Xervous]

What even says you have to start at level 1?

If the GM is saying that I’m taking 10 on finding the door.

[Boci]

What even says you have to start at level 1?

Nothing says you have to, but if level is the only way to regulate power, then you cannot have the elven generalist domain wizard start on level 1 like you currently can, which is a loss and yet people who says level can be used as the sole balancing factor keep insisting there is no loss.

[JNAProductions]

Nothing says you have to, but if level is the only way to regulate power, then you cannot have the elven generalist domain wizard start on level 1 like you currently can, which is a loss and yet people who says level can be used as the sole balancing factor keep insisting there is no loss.

What's the THEMATIC concept of Elven Generalist Domain Wizard?

Not the mechanical concept-because the mechanical concept is "Wizard, but better" which I don't feel is a niche that needs to be defended.

[Segev]

The counterargument being that 4e customization isn't very meaningful, because characters wind up very similar regardless of how many variables you push around.

There's a reason it died so quickly.


What's the THEMATIC concept of Elven Generalist Domain Wizard?

Not the mechanical concept-because the mechanical concept is "Wizard, but better" which I don't feel is a niche that needs to be defended.

I think it really is, "Elves are wizards by preferred class. They're theoretically really focused on it. So they make better wizards even when generalizing; they just have the best wizard courses at their elf-only colleges."

Or, put another way, I think "Elves make better wizards" very much is the theme being pushed.

[Boci]

What's the THEMATIC concept of Elven Generalist Domain Wizard?

Not the mechanical concept-because the mechanical concept is "Wizard, but better" which I don't feel is a niche that needs to be defended.

You don't have to personally, but some people like it. Like me. I like the idea that not all magic users are equal and some will be more powerful than others, not just because their higher level, but because their fundamental use of magic is different, and often better.

I totally get it if that's not for you, I don't always like it, I'm just highlighting some opportunities the imbalance of 3.5 offers.


Or, put another way, I think "Elves make better wizards" very much is the theme being pushed.

Doesn't have to be a elf, or even a wizard, I just like arcane amgic and non-specialized wizard, so elven generalist is a logical choice. I also like that arcivists can generally be described as being better at divine magic than favoured souls, for similar reasons.

[JNAProductions]

You don't have to personally, but some people like it. Like me. I like the idea that not all magic users are equal and some will be more powerful than others, not just because their higher level, but because their fundamental use of magic is different, and often better.

I totally get it if that's not for you, I don't always like it, I'm just highlighting some opportunities the imbalance of 3.5 offers.

Why is that desirable? You have a metric that is SUPPOSED to measure general power-Level. Why would you want to intentionally make that inaccurate?

Especially since level is NOT an in-universe metric. It's an out-of-game metric. So you could have a Dwarven Wizard who's been training for a century, and is level two. You could then have an Elven Wizard who's been training for a decade, and is level six. Your fluff is entirely unchanged-Elves are just better at magic than Dwarves are (at least Arcane magic). But the out-of-game metric for measuring power retains its accuracy.

[Boci]

Why is that desirable? You have a metric that is SUPPOSED to measure general power-Level. Why would you want to intentionally make that inaccurate?

Because then I can have multiple types of magic use that are not equal to eachother, which I like.

Again, I get a preference for balance, and I have my own set of houserules to achieve that. But I don't always use them because sometimes the imbalance makes some good opportunities. The weaker caster isn't weaker because they're a lower level, the way they produce and shape magical energy is different, and in many cases inferior. I sometimes like to use the worldbuilding and storytelling potential that have.

[Xervous]

Nothing says you have to, but if level is the only way to regulate power, then you cannot have the elven generalist domain wizard start on level 1 like you currently can, which is a loss and yet people who says level can be used as the sole balancing factor keep insisting there is no loss.

Level should be the best coarse measure. I’m fine with it being off by up to 5 (as outliers) or so.

[JNAProductions]

Because then I can have multiple types of magic use that are not equal to eachother, which I like.

Again, I get a preference for balance, and I have my own set of houserules to achieve that. But I don't always use them because sometimes the imbalance makes some good opportunities. The weaker caster isn't weaker because they're a lower level, the way they produce and shape magical energy is different, and in many cases inferior. I sometimes like to use the worldbuilding and storytelling potential that have.

If you want an imbalanced party, you can easily and accurately achieve that by using PCs of different level, in a balanced, level-based game.

It's much, MUCH easier to unbalance a balanced game than it is to balance an unbalanced one. Hell, if you really HAVE to have two PCs of the same level (which, again, is purely a metagame construct) be of differing power levels, you could just give the more powerful player basic buffs. In a vancian system, give them an extra slot or two of every level. Boom, done. Easy. But attempting to balance a Warmage with a Wizard? That's a pretty big task, and one that the game developers should've done. Or at least, they should've made clear that the classes are not balanced for the most part-which is not something that, to my knowledge, they ever did.

[Boci]

If you want an imbalanced party, you can easily and accurately achieve that by using PCs of different level, in a balanced, level-based game.

Who said I wanted an imbalanced party? The example I first used was a party of an optimized druid, wizard and the like, then the second game is a warblade, factotum, bard and warmage (not tking rainbow savant), set in the same world where the old party are now the villains ahving gain control of the land over the course of the previous game.


Or at least, they should've made clear that the classes are not balanced for the most part-which is not something that, to my knowledge, they ever did.

Oh sure I'm not saying its good 3.5 was unbalanced. I'm saying it is, so we may as well talk about some of the opportunities this balance give for storytelling and gameplay, rather than speculating about a hypothetical balanced 3.5.

[JNAProductions]

Who said I wanted an imbalanced party? The example I first used was a party of an optimized druid, wizard and the like, then the second game is a warblade, factotum, bard and warmage (not tking rainbow savant), set in the same world where the old party are now the villains ahving gain control of the land over the course of the previous game.

So if you don't want an imbalanced party, why do you want imbalance?

[Boci]

So if you don't want an imbalanced party, why do you want imbalance?

Because the imbalance between the two parties, the heroes come villains of the first story and the heroes of the second story, add to the story. The villains are more powerful than the heroes because they're higher level. The heroes will not be equal in ability to the villains in a few levels. The heroes and villains are fundamentally different in how their abilities operate, which I think can be cool. The story also works if the heroes and villains are balanced and the villains are just high level, I'm not saying imbalance is required for this stroy, just that it adds an additional touch that can be cool to utilize.

[Batcathat]

Again, I get a preference for balance, and I have my own set of houserules to achieve that. But I don't always use them because sometimes the imbalance makes some good opportunities. The weaker caster isn't weaker because they're a lower level, the way they produce and shape magical energy is different, and in many cases inferior. I sometimes like to use the worldbuilding and storytelling potential that have.

But can't unbalanced classes limit worldbuilding and storytelling just as much as they can enhance it? Say, for example, that you want a Big Bad who uses nothing but "mundane" fighting skill to strike fear into the heart of the innocent and whatnot. You'd probably have to jump through all sorts of optimization hoops to have them pose a credible threat to a party that include casters.

[Boci]

But can't unbalanced classes limit worldbuilding and storytelling just as much as they can enhance it? Say, for example, that you want a Big Bad who uses nothing but "mundane" fighting skill to strike fear into the heart of the innocent and whatnot. You'd probably have to jump through all sorts of optimization hoops to have them pose a credible threat to a party that include casters.

Sure yeah, I never said it was all good. Unbalance has it disadvantages, you can't quote me saying otherwise, but since 3.5 is unbalanced, I figured we may as well discuss how that can lead to some interesting story telling options.

[JNAProductions]

Because the imbalance between the two parties, the heroes come villains of the first story and the heroes of the second story, add to the story. The villains are more powerful than the heroes because they're higher level. The heroes will not be equal in ability to the villains in a few levels. The heroes and villains are fundamentally different in how their abilities operate, which I think can be cool. The story also works if the heroes and villains are balanced and the villains are just high level, I'm not saying imbalance is required for this stroy, just that it adds an additional touch that can be cool to utilize.

Why does it matter to you that the heroes and villains be the same level?

Again, level is metagame, out-of-game, not in-universe... Your players never need to know that your BBEG is level 30, they just know "Holy hell, that was one heck of a fight! Made it by the skin of our teeth!"

So why is the game BETTER when level does not accurately represent power?

[Boci]

So why is the game BETTER when level does not accurately represent power?

Again, not saying its better. I'm saying it gives some opportunity balance wouldn't have. Overall, (on balance), would 3.5 have been a better game is the classes were more balanced? Yes. But that's not what we got, so we may as well talk about some storrytelling and world building opportunities that presents.

[Bartmanhomer]

Epic level is from a 3.0 splatbook, not everyone uses it and there are mixed views on how well it works. Besides, it still means you can't start from level 1 if your average or high power, since if the level is the only way to regulate character power 1 needs to be reserved for the low power characters unless level 0 and -1 are also created.

I'm pretty sure that Level 0 and -1 existed somewhere. (Homebrew-wise that is.)

[Boci]

I'm pretty sure that Level 0 and -1 existed somewhere. (Homebrew-wise that is.)

Sure, but whether or not a particular group enjoys the homebrewed 0 and -1 is another matter. Plus if you're advocating a solution, it helps if you have a link to something specific, not "homebrew" in general.

[Segev]

Doesn't have to be a elf, or even a wizard, I just like arcane amgic and non-specialized wizard, so elven generalist is a logical choice. I also like that arcivists can generally be described as being better at divine magic than favoured souls, for similar reasons.

Sure. I wasn't explaining why a particular player would go for it. I was explaining the theme it was pushing/representing as a design element in the game.

[NigelWalmsley]

So why is the game BETTER when level does not accurately represent power?

Did you not see the page worth of posts where we went around in a circle about this and it turns out the answer is "we lose <thing I won't describe>" and the only thing that will change his mind is an entire functioning game system?

[Boci]

Did you not see the page worth of posts where we went around in a circle about this and it turns out the answer is "we lose <thing I won't describe>" and the only thing that will change his mind is an entire functioning game system?

If you can't deliver a functioning game system, then the current 3.5 that exists and is functional will always win. Otherwise its like saying you have an idea for the best roleplaying game ever, its not written yet but it will be the best. You might find people want to see the finished product before singing your praise.

[lylsyly]

I just read the entire thread and I'm going to say that it's a known fact (for years) that 3.x IS broken. The bottom line is that it's up to a DM to fix that problem for HIS/HER table in a way the HIS/HER table is happy with. Table wants to play 3 Druids and a Wizard? No fix necessary! They want to play a so called STANDARD party? Then casters need to be nerfed and mundanes boosted! If they want to play a ranger/paladin/bard/rogue? Meh! probably no work needed again.

I have a limited set of rules I use when it's my turn to DM and our table is happy with it. Completely Balanced? Not quite! But we feel it's far better than the mess that 3.x actually is.

[Boci]

I have a limited set of rules I use when it's my turn to DM and our table is happy with it. Completely Balanced? Not quite! But we feel it's far better than the mess that 3.x actually is.

This is pretty much my stance too. If balance is important to a group, and it usually is, then between core and splat, third party and homebrew, you can pick and mix to get a pretty diserve set of options that are mostly balanced against eachother.

And if someone wants to claim its possible to have a balanced 3.5 without losing any options, yeah, they're going to need to show that.

[JNAProductions]

This is pretty much my stance too. If balance is important to a group, and it usually is, then between core and splat, third party and homebrew, you can pick and mix to get a pretty diserve set of options that are mostly balanced against eachother.

And if someone wants to claim its possible to have a balanced 3.5 without losing any options, yeah, they're going to need to show that.

It depends what you define as an option.

For instance, "Wizard but better at every level" is, to me, not a mechanical niche worth keeping. A Domain Wizard is a fine niche-give up your normal school specialty for some Domain access is a good niche, both mechanically and thematically. But Elven Generalist Domain Wizard, where you give up basically nothing and gain a ton on one of the most powerful classes in the game? That's not a niche I think is worth preserving.

Again-if you wanted "Wizard, but better" you'd still have that, just with a higher level Wizard.

[Boci]

It depends what you define as an option.

For instance, "Wizard but better at every level" is, to me, not a mechanical niche worth keeping. A Domain Wizard is a fine niche-give up your normal school specialty for some Domain access is a good niche, both mechanically and thematically. But Elven Generalist Domain Wizard, where you give up basically nothing and gain a ton on one of the most powerful classes in the game? That's not a niche I think is worth preserving.

Again-if you wanted "Wizard, but better" you'd still have that, just with a higher level Wizard.

How could you define "elven generalist domain wizard" as anything other an option? You say its not " a mechanical niche worth keeping", which is a fair opinion, but it is an option right? That's my point. The idea you can balance 3.5 without cutting anything is ludacris, and inevitably some people will miss what you chose, whilst others won't mind.

[Bartmanhomer]

Sure, but whether or not a particular group enjoys the homebrewed 0 and -1 is another matter. Plus if you're advocating a solution, it helps if you have a link to something specific, not "homebrew" in general.

Yes, I suppose that will be the case.

[JNAProductions]

How could you define "elven generalist domain wizard" as anything other an option? You say its not " a mechanical niche worth keeping", which is a fair opinion, but it is an option right? That's my point. The idea you can balance 3.5 without cutting anything is ludacris, and inevitably some people will miss what you chose, whilst others won't mind.

So what's the thematic niche of an Elven Generalist Domain Wizard?

Because, as far as I can see, its mechanical niche is "Wizard, but better," which can be replicated by "Wizard, but higher level". You can't be an EGDW at level 1, since that'd put you on par with plebeian Human Wizards, but you still can be.

[Boci]

So what's the thematic niche of an Elven Generalist Domain Wizard?

Because, as far as I can see, its mechanical niche is "Wizard, but better," which can be replicated by "Wizard, but higher level". You can't be an EGDW at level 1, since that'd put you on par with plebeian Human Wizards, but you still can be.

I didn't actually say it was a mechanical niche, I said it was option, that would be lost if you cut, and therefor shows you can't balance 3.5 without removing some options, which was my main argument. Maybe you can balance D&D 3.5, hell you already can do a decent job of that, but not without cutting options.

But I do happen to like the concept of wizard better, because they studied harder. So no, wizard at highewr level doesn't work. Then I have higher HP, BAB and saves. Why did studying harder give me that? I like the option to show that even wizard academies had honour students, the top 1% of students. Based on most real life universiites, this seems like a believable piece of world building.

[JNAProductions]

I didn't actually say it was a mechanical niche, I said it was option, that would be lost if you cut, and therefor shows you can't balance 3.5 without removing some options, which was my main argument. Maybe you can balance D&D 3.5, hell you already can do a decent job of that, but not without cutting options.

But I do happen to like the concept of wizard better, because they studied harder. So no, wizard at highewr level doesn't work. Then I have higher HP, BAB and saves. Why did studying harder give me that? I like the option to show that even wizard academies had honour students, the top 1% of students. Based on most real life universiites, this seems like a believable piece of world building.

To the first point, I think one can reasonably add "Meaningful" to the options. If Weapon Focus became a Fighter class feature instead of a feat, would anything MEANINGFUL be lost?

To the second point, that's a fundamental factor with 3.P. You can't, for instance, have a master craftsperson who's not also a ridiculously durable tank (off HP and saves alone) and really, REALLY good at fighting relative to ordinary people (two attacks at a much greater bonus than a level 1 Commoner).

I originally wrote "fundamental issue" instead of factor, but then again, it's not inherently bad. It makes 3.5 absolutely AWFUL for modeling reality in any significant fashion, but it works well for the player interface. The issue, I believe, is more that you're heavily discouraged from saying "Screw the rules!" for NPCs. I can completely understand that an NPC should NOT be arbitrarily far stronger than they have any right to be-for instance, it'd be rather unfair for an NPC to get any single free metamagic on any spell they cast, without some serious foreshadowing and explanations-but for mundane things, like crafting, I don't think it'd be at all unreasonable to state that "This master blacksmith has +30 to craft (blacksmithing) checks, despite being level 4."

[Boci]

To the first point, I think one can reasonably add "Meaningful" to the options. If Weapon Focus became a Fighter class feature instead of a feat, would anything MEANINGFUL be lost?

And who decides what meaningful is? Isn't it just better to aknolwedge that rebalancing a deeply imbalanced game will have some casualties?


To the second point, that's a fundamental factor with 3.P.

Which the imbalance offers certain, if limited workarounds to. You don't have to like it yourself, I'm just saying, the imbalance gives options that wouldn't be there otherwise.

[NigelWalmsley]

I didn't actually say it was a mechanical niche, I said it was option, that would be lost if you cut, and therefor shows you can't balance 3.5 without removing some options, which was my main argument.

And that argument is wrong. If you replaced every class in the PHB with the most closely equivalent T3 class, you would have a more balanced game with the same number of options. Removing an option does not mean there are less options, because there are also options that are currently not in the game.


I don't think it'd be at all unreasonable to state that "This master blacksmith has +30 to craft (blacksmithing) checks, despite being level 4."

3e coupling skills tightly to level is a real problem. It makes things like "Wizard who clues the PCs in on <plot detail>" stupid, because if the Wizard has a high enough Knowledge check to do that, he could just solve the adventure his own damn self. Where I disagree is that you should do any kind of "screw the rules" thing to achieve this. The rules should just let you get really big skill bonuses without progressing in level. And that option should be open to PCs, and skills should be limited enough in scope that it does not destroy the game if the party diplomat gets +20 at 4th level.

[Boci]

And that argument is wrong. If you replaced every class in the PHB with the most closely equivalent T3 class, you would have a more balanced game with the same number of options. Removing an option does not mean there are less options, because there are also options that are currently not in the game.

If every class is tier 3, you've lost tier 4, 2 and 1 gameplay, which some people enjoy more than tier 3. So, you've disproven your own argument.

[NigelWalmsley]

If every class is tier 3, you've lost tier 4, 2 and 1 gameplay, which some people enjoy more than tier 3. So, you've disproven your own argument.

No I haven't. Or at least, you have been unable to explain what that means or why it is true. Moreover, the fact that one game has something and the other does not does not inherently make the other less diverse. Consider a simple analogy. In one case, I give you an apple, a mango, and a banana. In the other, I give you an apple, a mango, a pear, and a grape. Yes, you've lost "banana". But you've actually gained variety.

[Boci]

No I haven't. Or at least, you have been unable to explain what that means or why it is true. Moreover, the fact that one game has something and the other does not does not inherently make the other less diverse. Consider a simple analogy. In one case, I give you an apple, a mango, and a banana. In the other, I give you an apple, a mango, a pear, and a grape. Yes, you've lost "banana". But you've actually gained variety.

And if someone like a bannana but doesn't like the others fruits, they won't like your changes, variety gained be damned. This is why trying to peddle "the one and only fixed 3.5" is kinda a lost cause. Groups need to customize for themselves, one size fits all just won't work.

[NigelWalmsley]

And if someone like a bannana but doesn't like the others fruits, they won't like your changes, variety gained be damned. This is why trying to peddle "the one and only fixed 3.5" is kinda a lost cause. Groups need to customize for themselves, one size fits all just won't work.

And what about the people who really like grapes or pears? I'm sorry, but for me to believe your claim that 3.5 is the best we can do, I'm going to need to see comprehensive polling indicating that its list of classes is the maximally possible popular list.

[Boci]

And what about the people who really like grapes or pears? I'm sorry, but for me to believe your claim that 3.5 is the best we can do

I never said that and am confused as to why you would think I did. I said 3.5 beats an imaginary non-existent product, which I stand by, and I said there are some opportunities created by the imbalance. Opportunities does not mean better much less best. I also said how you can balance 3.5, on a group level, and only with a fair few options cut. See, I actually have a solution that can be used for a real game.

[NigelWalmsley]

I said there are some opportunities created by the imbalance.

Yes, but you have been unable to give any examples of these that you did not yourself immediately refute, and you have asserted that the only acceptable evidence against them is an entire functioning game. You can perhaps appreciate why I find your protestations that you totally believe we could do better somewhat hollow.

[Boci]

Yes, but you have been unable to give any examples of these that you did not yourself immediately refute, and you have asserted that the only acceptable evidence against them is an entire functioning game.

Yes. The only acceptable evidence for a functioning, balanced 3.5 game is...a functioning, balanced 3.5. Until then you have nothing to offer that can actually be used for a group to play with.


You can perhaps appreciate why I find your protestations that you totally believe we could do better somewhat hollow.

Not really, I have no idea why you're being unreasonable. We have 17 years of homebrew and houserules, most of which enrichess the game in some form, and quite a bit can work to improve balance. We have reworked martial, ways of handling and restricting spells and magic, a full set of advanced casters classes...

[Lord Raziere]

Not really, I have no idea why you're being unreasonable. We have 17 years of homebrew and houserules, most of which enrichess the game in some form, and quite a bit can work to improve balance. We have reworked martial, ways of handling and restricting spells and magic, a full set of advanced casters classes...

"Skyrim is not glitchy bugged or broken, I have 240 fan-mods that make sure it isn't!" :smallamused:

[NigelWalmsley]

Yes. The only acceptable evidence for a functioning, balanced 3.5 game is...a functioning, balanced 3.5.

That's the only evidence you will accept. But that's because you've moved the goalposts to a place no one can possibly reach, because you know you lose the second you make the burden of proof obtainable. I've explained how to balance 3e. You've repeatedly failed to explain how that process doesn't work, or how it results in a smaller set of options. This argument is over, and I have won. Frankly, it was over the second you used "level" in your explanation for why levels weren't good enough to measure power.


"Skyrim is not glitchy bugged or broken, I have 240 fan-mods that make sure it isn't!" :smallamused:

Also "You can't call Skyrim broken unless you've released your own Elder Scrolls game".

[Darg]

Just because a game is balanced doesn't make it fun. I personally find balanced games not fun. If you want an example of a balanced game there's tic-tac-toe. If both players are skilled the one who wins initiative is the only one with the possibility to win and yet the loser can always bring a cats game. Equal skill level and dedication = middle of the road result.

[thelastorphan]

3.x is far from perfect.

Being able to play a game where everyone is tier 4 levels 1-20 and where everyone is tier 1 levels 1-20 are very different.

You cant simulate those two different play experiences in a single, unified balanced system.

If you want to keep both 1-20 experiences in the same game system, the game requires vastly different scales of options to exist. The only problem with that imo, is that those things need to me made clear in the text of the rules.

I think there is merit to both game styles being playable 1-20 in the same system.



That said I would prefer a system where the overall band of power was what we consider tier2 - tier4.

But I also think the game needs to be clearer about the fact that even in such a scenario you can have vastly different play experiences.

[Florian]

Just because a game is balanced doesn't make it fun. I personally find balanced games not fun. If you want an example of a balanced game there's tic-tac-toe. If both players are skilled the one who wins initiative is the only one with the possibility to win and yet the loser can always bring a cats game. Equal skill level and dedication = middle of the road result.

There are many different ways that the term "balance" can be understood. Equal, same, value, options. These four get mixed up a bit in discussions like these.

I tend towards the value approach: Do you get the same bang for your buck?

For example, do two feats have the same value, when one provides a permanent +1 to hit, while the other provides +10 to hit 3/day? Depends on the condition we talk about. Assuming that we will roughly have 30 combat rounds per day, then yes. But how would the value of 9 bonus feats compare to spell slots for 1st to 9th level spells? Assuming the same 30 combat rounds, then very badly. In both cases, the value shifts when the base assumption is fewer or infinite combat rounds.

Now we don´t need to work with assumptions because we know what the balance point should be: 4 equal CR combats at 25% resources each - sorta-kinda the same as the Adventuring Day in 4E and 5E.

So, something seems to be out of whack here: The whole thing is solely based on combat, everything resolves around those 30 combat rounds.

It gets weird fast from that point onwards. The model won't hold up when we start comparing non-combat activities. While 30 rounds of "I shoot it with my bow" seem plausible, 30 rounds of "I use Diplomacy" certainly does not.

And so on.

[Florian]

Snip

Ok, I think, in a way, this showcases why discussions like these are often pretty much fruitless.

Some of us work with the assumption, that class = "style" and character level = "Power level".

The Tiers were only invented as a reaction to explain why this doesn't work in 3E, for example, why some characters advance in a linear, other in a quadratic way in actual power when individually compared to class levels.

There is this stupid example that has been floating around this topic, with he T1 party becoming the villains for the T4 party. It really showcases what is both wrong and misunderstood with this entire topic.

One side assumes that this is an uphill battle because the first party operates on the power level of, say, level 12, while the second party starts at the power level of 1. When the second party hits or suppressed character level 12, they are effectively at or above the power level of the first party.

The other side basically assumes that character level doesn't matter, the difference in the individual power levels of the Tiers is what makes the difference, so when both sides hit the equal character level of 12, the first party is still superior.

[Boci]

"Skyrim is not glitchy bugged or broken, I have 240 fan-mods that make sure it isn't!" :smallamused:

And I said 3.5 isn't broken...where exactly? Can you quote me saying that please?


Also "You can't call Skyrim broken unless you've released your own Elder Scrolls game".

No, you can totally call 3.5 broken (because it kinda is).

You can't call 3.5 fixed until you've fixed it. Just like you can't call Skyrim (largely) bugfree until you've (or someone else) has actually released the mods and patches to fix it. Otherwise what you have an imagined scenario.

[Florian]

You can't call 3.5 fixed until you've fixed it.

BS. It´s enough that it can be done in theory. In practice, 3E is a dead horse that doesn't even deserve to be kicked any more and the people that remain fans are mainly in it for the broken parts.

[Boci]

BS. It´s enough that it can be done in theory. In practice, 3E is a dead horse that doesn't even deserve to be kicked any more and the people that remain fans are mainly in it for the broken parts.

Not really. Groups can easily play a balanced form of 4.6, by limiting the content they use. There's enough material in 3.5 that you can have a diverse set of options at most levels of play. Sure there will likely be options that are broken, but if they don't take them that matters less.

And no, I'm not saying 3.5 isn't broken, just that expirienced groups can overcome this aspect of the game.

[Florian]

Not really. Groups can easily play a balanced form of 4.6, by limiting the content they use. There's enough material in 3.5 that you can have a diverse set of options at most levels of play. Sure there will likely be options that are broken, but if they don't take them that matters less.

And no, I'm not saying 3.5 isn't broken, just that expirienced groups can overcome this aspect of the game.

Again: BS.

To use an analogy, what you basically are saying: Dell/Alienware builds shi**y computers but with a nice case, only thing you need to to with the whole situation is rip out everything, replace it with your own parts, keep the case for that Alienware look.

See, the moment I do have the kind of experience to understand the whole system and come up with the needed fixes to customize it for my group, I could already be done with the whole topic by actually using a system that fits that group without problems or going home-brew, as basically, a big brand name doesn't matter because I already have a group.

I guess, it would be more honest for a lot of people to simply state that the broken parts _are_ their game and be done with it.

[Boci]

Again: BS.

Nope, people do play the game that way. The fact that you dislike the concept matters little to those groups.


I guess, it would be more honest for a lot of people to simply state that the broken parts _are_ their game and be done with it.

Broken is relative. If everyone in the group is using broken stuff, then the group can be relativly balanced.

[Florian]

Broken is relative. If everyone in the group is using broken stuff, then the group can be relativly balanced.

Ok, last try: Both, U.S. Americans and Germans love powerful cars.

The former has a fixed speed limit in place, but people just _love_ to own cars that could break those limits anytime and they potentially sink a lot of money and time in improving on that. The sheer thrill of an illegal car race and all that.

The later doesn't have a fixed speed limit, so when you can do as you want, priorities start to change. A souped-up Dodge Charger actually comes across as pretty much silly when you either own a Daimler AMG version, or something freaky as, say, a Abarth 695, when the focus switches from potential power over to control.

[Boci]

Ok, last try: Both, U.S. Americans and Germans love powerful cars.

The former has a fixed speed limit in place, but people just _love_ to own cars that could break those limits anytime and they potentially sink a lot of money and time in improving on that. The sheer thrill of an illegal car race and all that.

The later doesn't have a fixed speed limit, so when you can do as you want, priorities start to change. A souped-up Dodge Charger actually comes across as pretty much silly when you either own a Daimler AMG version, or something freaky as, say, a Abarth 695, when the focus switches from potential power over to control.

Might I suggest an alternative take, that maybe your assertion that every person still playing 3.5 can only possibly like the broken stuff is off, on account of you possible misjudging the thousands of people you've never met?

No, you ruled that out as a possibility?

I like D&D 3.5. I like some of the stuff that others would consider broken and I like the storytelling opportunities this can present. But I also like more balanced games, ones where the class pool is restricted to factotum, tome of battle, advanced casters (homebrewed to completion) and the like. I also like playing mostly core stuff with new characters, who enjoy the game and don't know enough about it to break anything. (At least my current new group hasn't yet.)

[Segev]

On levels being the same power rating: there’s no reason they can’t be. It might be tricky to design. It could also balance around XP totals with levels breaking at convenient design points. For example, a level 10 fighter, level 15 rogue, and level 6 wizard could theoretically be on the same power level and be balanced if they all were at 10,000 XP due to earning the same XP at the same rate.

If burning XP for non-level power ups (e.g. spells and magic item crafting), then this is again harder to do just right since the ones burning XP need to level a little faster than otherwise based on the fact of their burn.

[Florian]

No, you ruled that out as a possibility?

Boci, you seem to rule out that this is also a cultural thing of sorts. In countries that have their own RPG industry, D&D might be a major player, but is far away from the 800 pound Gorilla in the room the brand is in the U.S.

When "Let´s role-play" isn't synonymous for "Let´s play D&D", the wheat is divided from the chaff.

[Boci]

On levels being the same power rating: there’s no reason they can’t be. It might be tricky to design. It could also balance around XP totals with levels breaking at convenient design points. For example, a level 10 fighter, level 15 rogue, and level 6 wizard could theoretically be on the same power level and be balanced if they all were at 10,000 XP due to earning the same XP at the same rate.

If burning XP for non-level power ups (e.g. spells and magic item crafting), then this is again harder to do just right since the ones burning XP need to level a little faster than otherwise based on the fact of their burn.

If balance is your goal you'd also need to ensure one 6th level wizard is roughly equal to another 6th level wizard, which currently isn't always the case in 3.5. Overall this sounds like a monumental rehauling of the system that will almost certainly never be completed, much less done so well.


Boci, you seem to rule out that this is also a cultural thing of sorts.

No I haven't. I'm just pointing out that you're (probably) wrong when you say the only people still playing 3.5 all like the broken stuff, because there could well be other reasons too.

[Segev]

If balance is your goal you'd also need to ensure one 6th level wizard is roughly equal to another 6th level wizard, which currently isn't always the case in 3.5. Overall this sounds like a monumental rehauling of the system that will almost certainly never be completed, much less done so well.

All I said is that it’s theoretically possible. I didn’t say it’s how 3.5 currently was.

It’s useful if you’re designing your own system, as it’s a way you can choose to try to balance things.

[Boci]

All I said is that it’s theoretically possible. I didn’t say it’s how 3.5 currently was.

It’s useful if you’re designing your own system, as it’s a way you can choose to try to balance things.

If you're designing your own system and care about balance, making each class balanced is likely a better way to ago about it than having different classes be at different power ranks and balancing that them against eachother on the assumption they will be at different levels in the same party.

[Florian]

No I haven't. I'm just pointing out that you're (probably) wrong when you say the only people still playing 3.5 all like the broken stuff, because there could well be other reasons too.

See, the advantage of living in a country with an independent RPG industry is, that the people running and working in that industry have to be very close to their fan base, something that doesn't happen in the U.S.

For example, ages ago, DSA beat D&D as being the mainstream. As with the U.S. WW managed to grab attention and sales by allowing power fantasy. Cue to D&D 3.0E, which wasn't that much of a thing, only 3.5E and later Pathfinder managed the same feat, offering a radical power fantasy way above the regular mainstream.

Notice a certain difference there: 3E as Mainstream and 3E as Challenger to the mainstream can be judged quite differently.

[thelastorphan]

The Tiers were only invented as a reaction to explain why this doesn't work in 3E, for example, why some characters advance in a linear, other in a quadratic way in actual power when individually compared to class levels.


I think this logic is backwards, the Tiers were labeled, not invented. The community observed a pretty clear phenomenon in the mechanics of the game and labeled it. This is a pretty big distinction and one that I think is often misconstrued. They were there from the beginning intended or not.

Yes, you can play games where the tiers never matter, and most games I have played never ran afoul of the wide disparity in power between Monk and Wizard.


Why shouldn't I be able to run a high powered 1-20 game or a low powered 1-20 game with the same system, without changing any fundamental rules?

3.x allows me to change no rules, simply modify a class list for world building and achieve a world from Lord of the Rings through Warhammer Fantasy and Beyond. That being caused by bugs doesnt bother me.

I find that being able to do both with the same rules is pretty awesome, in fact.


Again, my preferred power band is tiers 2-4, and I think that still allows lots of different simulations of different fantasy genres from levels 1-20. I think that's a strength of 3.x and the reason I keep playing this game.

[NigelWalmsley]

Just because a game is balanced doesn't make it fun. I personally find balanced games not fun. If you want an example of a balanced game there's tic-tac-toe. If both players are skilled the one who wins initiative is the only one with the possibility to win and yet the loser can always bring a cats game. Equal skill level and dedication = middle of the road result.

Tic-Tac-Toe is a bad example. It's not boring because it's balanced, it's boring because the playspace is tiny. If you declared that X gets to move twice every turn, it'd be way less balanced, but wouldn't be any more interesting. Compare it to Chess, which is equally balanced, but massively more interesting because there's enough going on for real strategic depth.


I think this logic is backwards, the Tiers were labeled, not invented.

No, the tiers were invented. Yes, imbalance exists. But the particular way the Tiers choose to label that imbalance, and the particular things they count are inventions. There's no inherent reason that we shouldn't count Warmage/Rainbow Servant towards the power of the Warmage (or that we should). The tiers choose not to, because the people who invented them didn't want to think about PrC interactions. That's a defensible choice, but it does mean that the Tiers aren't just a totally correct metric for measuring power that was sitting around waiting to be found.


Why shouldn't I be able to run a high powered 1-20 game or a low powered 1-20 game with the same system, without changing any fundamental rules?

What does that even mean? If "20" isn't going to mean the same thing in different games, why should those games both use it? It's like asking why I shouldn't be able to drive a "fast" 20 MPH or a "slow" 20 MPH.


3.x allows me to change no rules

You absolutely do have to change rules. Specifically, you have to change the encounter guidelines. The challenges that are appropriate for a party of Fighters are not appropriate for a party of Wizards.

[Boci]

What does that even mean? If "20" isn't going to mean the same thing in different games, why should those games both use it? It's like asking why I shouldn't be able to drive a "fast" 20 MPH or a "slow" 20 MPH.

High power or low power 20 still means the same thing: barring epic its the end of the character's progression. Where they stand at the end will vary, but 20 still means the same thing.


You absolutely do have to change rules. Specifically, you have to change the encounter guidelines. The challenges that are appropriate for a party of Fighters are not appropriate for a party of Wizards.

But the encounters are still both 3.5, there's no change in the rule system.

[thelastorphan]

Tic-Tac-Toe is a bad example. It's not boring because it's balanced, it's boring because the playspace is tiny. If you declared that X gets to move twice every turn, it'd be way less balanced, but wouldn't be any more interesting. Compare it to Chess, which is equally balanced, but massively more interesting because there's enough going on for real strategic depth.



No, the tiers were invented. Yes, imbalance exists. But the particular way the Tiers choose to label that imbalance, and the particular things they count are inventions. There's no inherent reason that we shouldn't count Warmage/Rainbow Servant towards the power of the Warmage (or that we should). The tiers choose not to, because the people who invented them didn't want to think about PrC interactions. That's a defensible choice, but it does mean that the Tiers aren't just a totally correct metric for measuring power that was sitting around waiting to be found.



What does that even mean? If "20" isn't going to mean the same thing in different games, why should those games both use it? It's like asking why I shouldn't be able to drive a "fast" 20 MPH or a "slow" 20 MPH.



You absolutely do have to change rules. Specifically, you have to change the encounter guidelines. The challenges that are appropriate for a party of Fighters are not appropriate for a party of Wizards.


You're stuck on the car analogy which is in appropriate. A social game is more fluid than any mechanical object can hope to model. Any mechanical and fundamentally limited object pales in comparison to the complexity of a social endeavor.

A better comparison would be the way people engage with media, what we get out of it is based on what we put in, and the vast majority of viewpoints are valid.


Also, labeling the imbalance and inventing it are distinct, regardless of what the limits of those labels are. Tiering the PrC is something that has been done but is significantly more complex. There are always better labels defined overtime, science, math, and philosophy always allow for this.


Changing encounter design changes ZERO fundamental rules. Combat is operated under the same paradigm, we roll the same dice, we are looking for the same results. You even referred to it as a guideline. Show me a fundamental rule that's changed by changing the challenge rating of an encounter. CR is explicitly a guideline. Theres even a table for using higher and lower CR values.

[NigelWalmsley]

High power or low power 20 still means the same thing: barring epic its the end of the character's progression. Where they stand at the end will vary, but 20 still means the same thing.

No, it doesn't. You could end someone's progression at 5 or 12 or 30. Many games do.


But the encounters are still both 3.5, there's no change in the rule system.

Yes, there is. The rules on CR and EL talk about what encounters are appropriate for a party. Not all tiers confirm to those guidelines. Some end up above them, some end up below them.


Also, labeling the imbalance and inventing it are distinct, regardless of what the limits of those labels are.

You are inventing a set of labels for the imbalance. Consider, for example, the tiering of the Rogue. It's in T4. And it presumably should be, based on the definitions of the Tiers. But we could easily imagine an alternate system that assumed Traps were a much larger part of the game, where it would rise by some amount. The fact that we didn't choose that system is an arbitrary decision, demonstrating that tiers are invented, not labeled.


CR is explicitly a guideline. Theres even a table for using higher and lower CR values.

CR is part of the system. If you do not use it as the guidelines indicate, you are changing the system. Yes, it's a guideline. But that doesn't make it not part of the rules.

[thelastorphan]

Those rules explicitly allow to use higher and lower values. Therefore doing so is well within the rules. I have changed nothing.

If you would like to provide an alternate example feel free. CR does not prove your point here.


I also maintain that observing something and labeling it is fundamentally distinct from inventing it. That imbalance existed, someone did the work of labeling it in a way the community embraced, it has somewhat shifted over time. It was not arbitrary, it was based on years of observation, now nearly two decades of such. That's simple scientific method, it could be better, but we chose to, on the whole embrace those labels, and that framework.

[Boci]

No, it doesn't. You could end someone's progression at 5 or 12 or 30. Many games do.

12 sure, but 30 no. Many games do not go to level 30. Use of epic rules are uncommon.

[Florian]

Snip

You don't even notice that you are actually proving my point, do you?

When the stated intention is a progression from low to high powered (1-20) and it makes that much of a difference whether you do it with a high or low tier, that the initial difference between levels doesn't count anymore, then the devs have failed in any regard possible.

[Boci]

You don't even notice that you are actually proving my point, do you?

When the stated intention is a progression from low to high powered (1-20) and it makes that much of a difference whether you do it with a high or low tier, that the initial difference between levels doesn't count anymore, then the devs have failed in any regard possible.

As long as people have fun playing the game, does it matter that the devs technically failed on paper?

[JNAProductions]

As long as people have fun playing the game, does it matter that the devs technically failed on paper?

Yes. You can always improve. Whether you need to improve your design goals or the game, SOMETHING should change.

[Boci]

Yes. You can always improve. Whether you need to improve your design goals or the game, SOMETHING should change.

Whilst incremental improvements are certain possible for any system, and often much easier for 3.5, if that's what you're always doing you'll have little time left to play.

[Florian]

12 sure, but 30 no. Many games do not go to level 30. Use of epic rules are uncommon.

Might that be because the rules just don't work out and are not fun above a certain level?

Again, something like an AP treats you as sorta-kinda 6th level character eternally, which also chimes in well with E6.

Somethong else comes to mind, tho: Gestalt.

[JNAProductions]

Whilst incremental improvements are certain possible for any system, and often much easier for 3.5, if that's what you're always doing you'll have little time left to play.

Which is why the people who's literal jobs are to make the system should do it.

We shouldn't have to.

[thelastorphan]

Level isnt meaningless, it just wound up different from stated purpose.

There is value in being able to run multiple styles of game across 20 levels because players need to feel progression. You cant statically stay at level 3 forever and never progress inadvertently meaningful way and keep peoples interest for a multi year campaign.

I can assure you that e6 interests very few players outside forums like this that I have met. Most people look at the class table and think, I cant wait to get those abilities, BaB saves et al included.

3.x currently allows you to basically play a dozen kinds of games that all have independent and meaningful progression. From level 1-20. And that's without actually changing fundamental rules.you can create a custom class list for your world, and you havent actually changed any rules.

Does the game fail as an open unrestricted sandbox? In theoretical space, yes. But it rarely happens, not because of willful social contract but because system mastery takes alot of time and most groups never notice the accidents.

If you want to change mechanics, please do. But dont pretend there isnt actual value for people in being able to run both low and high fantasy with the same fundamental system and being able to run the same length of campaign with the same number of levels in those settings, because their absolutely is.

[Segev]

If you're designing your own system and care about balance, making each class balanced is likely a better way to ago about it than having different classes be at different power ranks and balancing that them against eachother on the assumption they will be at different levels in the same party.

Actually, not necessarily. Some concepts might be better-defined in coarser, more granular chunks, while others might need finer advancement. While this wouldn't balance anything in 3.5, I'm going to use it as a point of reference, here: it's a lot of work to make casters fill out 20 levels, because every other level is practically a dead level. PF1 went so far as to start dropping class features (even if just ribbons) every non-spell-level level. Imagine, instead, if casters took 2x as much xp to go up a level and had bigger hit dice or something, but gained a spell level every time they leveled up. It would be perfectly sensible, but the level of a caster would be of a different value than a level of, say, a rogue.

[Boci]

Actually, not necessarily. Some concepts might be better-defined in coarser, more granular chunks, while others might need finer advancement. While this wouldn't balance anything in 3.5, I'm going to use it as a point of reference, here: it's a lot of work to make casters fill out 20 levels, because every other level is practically a dead level. PF1 went so far as to start dropping class features (even if just ribbons) every non-spell-level level. Imagine, instead, if casters took 2x as much xp to go up a level and had bigger hit dice or something, but gained a spell level every time they leveled up. It would be perfectly sensible, but the level of a caster would be of a different value than a level of, say, a rogue.

Okay, but what's the advantage here? If a caster's player is bothered by a dead level (which gives them more spells perday, more HP, skillpoints, potential save and BAB increases and possibly a feat), wouldn't they also be bothered by staying on the same level with literal no change? I'm unsure why not leveling at all and getting literal stone cold nothing would be better than so called dead levels.


Which is why the people who's literal jobs are to make the system should do it.

We shouldn't have to.

Okay, and is this a useful discussion to be having now? It seems like the ship on the dev's culpability for the imbalance of 3.5 has sailed, gone round the world and returned with exotic spices. Most players and DMS seem to agree 3.5 is imbalanced, I don't know of anyone who argue this is ultimately anything but the dev's fault, so...

[Segev]

Okay, but what's the advantage here? If a caster's player is bothered by a dead level (which gives them more spells perday, more HP, skillpoints, potential save and BAB increases and possibly a feat), wouldn't they also be bothered by staying on the same level with literal no change? I'm unsure why not leveling at all and getting literal stone cold nothing would be better than so called dead levels.

We could turn this argument around and ask, "Why not quadruple the levels and insert more dead ones? Won't it feel better to get the hit points and BAB boosts faster even if you get nothing else?"

It's a matter of expectations and such. Also, while I used even increments of 3.5 levels, that is unlikely to be how it'd really play out. More likely, it'd be far less specifically granular. A wizard might hit 5th level at 22,500 xp, while a fighter hits 8th level at 24,000 xp and 9th at 29,500 xp, and the wizard doesn't hit 6th until 30,000 xp. (I'm just spitballing numbers, here, so please don't try to focus on them as "good" or "bad.") In this formulation, fighters are getting their levels faster, but wizards are getting more with each level because their spells going up in potency is that big of a deal.

It would let you gear monsters for XP ranges, if you can say that characters within 1000 xp, or within 2000 xp, or within some range of xp of each other are roughly the same power level.

It'd be even more beautiful if you could sum party XP to determine party capability, but that's probably not really ever going to be viable simply because you'll never account for spread that way.

[Boci]

We could turn this argument around and ask, "Why not quadruple the levels and insert more dead ones? Won't it feel better to get the hit points and BAB boosts faster even if you get nothing else?"

I certainly think that has a better chance of appealing to players than less levelling. Provided you're not changing the rate at which they reach the key class features, yes I imagine more levelling would be more satisfying. Dead will matter much less when you level so much faster and have more levels. Quadrupeling is probably too high, that's 80, but certainly 30 or 40 could work, more so than 10.

[Beldar]

I totally agree with the original poster.

The core of it is this:
Anytime there are choices available, some people will put in more effort than others and consequently will find the best ways to make those choices.
This results in some having more effective characters, in ANY system - as long as there are choices available.

Restricting choices is the path most seem to want to go down, but lets not pretend that that's the only possible path (I prefer making the challenges harder instead).
Too few choices is no longer fun, and no choices is no longer even a game.

As the original poster said, there are many ways to "break the game", but the reality is that it is the Dungeon Master's job to say "no" to such silliness as the "commoner railgun" and thereby keep his game unbroken and interesting.
I think most or all DM's do already say no to such things (ie, nobody tries to actually play a campaign with Pun-Pun). How hard a stretch is it to realize that they should say No to other loopholes, such as buying ladders and making a profit by selling the parts as 10' poles?

When a player says "I'll cast Wall of Salt and sell it for enough to buy the entire kingdom!" you pat them on the head (metaphorically) and say "congratulations, you broke the system and therefore the game is over...OR, would you like to keep playing?"

And as far as balancing characters...
When it comes down to it, it turns out that players don't want balance anyway - they just want to feel relevant and capable in their areas.
What is the classic complaint? It is some variation of "that other player's character consistently overshadows my character". In other words somebody feels weak and helpless in comparison to somebody else.

But the key is to let each character shine at times and in his area.
If the Wizard kills a group of monsters with a lightning bolt or similar in every fight, the fighters may feel irrelevant.
But if the Wizard shines in some fights, and the fighters in others (and sometimes it's the Rogues backstabbing away happily), then all is well - everybody feels effective sometimes.

If the Cleric or Wizard defeat every trap with spells, the Rogue will feel irrelevant.
At least the DM should just privately ask the Cleric and Wizard to leave that to the Rogue. If they cooperate, great. If not, the ban hammer can come out (usually my last choice, but still an option).
A creative DM with the time to spend can put in in-game elements to encourage desired behavior instead of banning things. In this example, that could be an Energy Transformation Field up around the trap, turning the Cleric's spell against him. Or it could be serious fights after the traps set up to make the Cleric wish he hadn't wasted his spell slots on defeating traps (or the DM can even just tell the player he plans to do this - watch how fast that player will choose combat spells instead of trap-defeating spells).

Basically, no rule set can evenly fix things for everybody.
Each DM must tailor his fix for his gaming group.
Design your challenges with the players in mind, so each gets to shine about as often as everyone else, and they will think it is "balanced".

[Batcathat]

Basically, no rule set can evenly fix things for everybody.
Each DM must tailor his fix for his gaming group.
Design your challenges with the players in mind, so each gets to shine about as often as everyone else, and they will think it is "balanced".

"No, no. This boat isn't broken. We have a great carpenter who runs around plugging all the holes that keep showing up."

[Boci]

"No, no. This boat isn't broken. We have a great carpenter who runs around plugging all the holes that keep showing up."

So do you object to the phrasing or the actualy method of play in question. Would you mind if someone said "Sure the boat is a little broken, it has its leaks. But they can be patched, and in a variety of ways that can make it waaay more fine to go out it than another, non-leaky, rigid boat?"

[Batcathat]

So do you object to the phrasing or the actualy method of play in question. Would you mind if someone said "Sure the boat is a little broken, it has its leaks. But they can be patched, and in a variety of ways that can make it waaay more fine to go out it than another, non-leaky, rigid boat?"

I object to using "the GM can fix it" as an argument against the system being broken. Yes, a good enough GM can handle it. A good enough GM could take a party composed of Superman and Jimmy Olsen and make both players feel like they were contributing. That doesn't mean a system where some classes are Supermen and some are Olsens but pretend all classes are roughly equal isn't broken.

[Boci]

I object to using "the GM can fix it" as an argument against the system being broken. Yes, a good enough GM can handle it. A good enough GM could take a party composed of Superman and Jimmy Olsen and make both players feel like they were contributing. That doesn't mean a system where some classes are Supermen and some are Olsens but pretend all classes are roughly equal isn't broken.

I notice you didn't asnwer my question. Do you object to people saying "sure it may be a little broken, but the DM can fix it, often in ways that make it more enjoyable than other game systems we've played"?

[Batcathat]

I notice you didn't asnwer my question.

You asked what my comment meant which is what I explained.


Do you object to people saying "sure it may be a little broken, but the DM can fix it, often in ways that make it more enjoyable than other game systems we've played"?

No, why would I object to that? I don't agree with it but it's a subjective opinion. I would disagree with anyone claiming it was anything more than a subjective opinion but that's more of a general opposition to people mixing up fact and opinion.

[Boci]

No, why would I object to that? I don't agree with it but it's a subjective opinion. I would disagree with anyone claiming it was anything more than a subjective opinion but that's more of a general opposition to people mixing up fact and opinion.

So why is it so important that people aknolwedge the game is broken before they're allowed to sit down and have fun it? Isn't how they have fun with the game system more important than whether or not they agree its broken, which is ultimatly just a word and probably doesn't matter that much?

[Batcathat]

So why is it so important that people aknolwedge the game is broken before they're allowed to sit down and have fun it? Isn't how they have fun with the game system more important than whether or not they agree its broken, which is ultimatly just a word and probably doesn't matter that much?

Sure. What gave you the impression that I felt it was important? I do think it's broken and argue in favor of that, I'm not forcing anyone to agree with me or even have an opinion on the matter.

[Boci]

Sure. What gave you the impression that I felt it was important? I do think it's broken and argue in favor of that, I'm not forcing anyone to agree with me or even have an opinion on the matter.

The fact that you specifically took the time to post a snarky analogy (and nothing else) in response to quite a long post about how the game can actually be enjoyed?

[Batcathat]

The fact that you specifically took the time to post a snarky analogy (and nothing else) in response to quite a long post about how the game can actually be enjoyed?

As I have already explained, I disagree with the fairly common argument "the GM can fix it so it doesn't matter". A snarky analogy isn't the most mature way of responding, granted, but it certainly doesn't make me some Grinch forcing people to agree the system is broken.

[thelastorphan]

I will reiterate that any comparison to a machine or limited object is flawed.

A game is not a machine.

It's a piece of media. How we engage with it influences what we take from it and a vast majority of interpretations are equally valid

[Florian]

I notice you didn't asnwer my question. Do you object to people saying "sure it may be a little broken, but the DM can fix it, often in ways that make it more enjoyable than other game systems we've played"?

Well, ok...

See, the reason to use a complex system is to play and have fun within the boundaries of said system and move away from "Mother many I?" as far as possible. It moves the GM from being "the rules" over to a position of being "arbiter of the rules".

[Boci]

Well, ok...

See, the reason to use a complex system is to play and have fun within the boundaries of said system and move away from "Mother many I?" as far as possible. It moves the GM from being "the rules" over to a position of being "arbiter of the rules".

Not sure what point you're trying to make here...

[lylsyly]

Well, ok...

See, the reason to use a complex system is to play and have fun within the boundaries of said system and move away from "Mother many I?" as far as possible. It moves the GM from being "the rules" over to a position of being "arbiter of the rules".

I've known I was the "arbiter of the rules", since January 1976 when I got OD&D for my 16th birthday.

[NigelWalmsley]

I will reiterate that any comparison to a machine or limited object is flawed.

Any comparison is flawed. That doesn't mean comparisons aren't useful. A game is a set of rules, intended for a purpose. That you can use it for some other purpose doesn't mean it succeeded or failed at the purpose for which it was designed (and this is true for machines too).