Post/Author/DateTime	Post
icnivad 03-23-07, 07:02 PM	It seems to me that every other thread these days claims that a specific class is either broken, or too weak. I'd like to have a discussion on the nature of a class being broken and both the DM and the player's responsibility in keeping a game well balanced and interesting for all players. I'd like to start by creating a couple of guidelines for this thread: First of all, I'd like to define "broken" as any class, ability, feature (etc.) that is so powerful as to make the game so unbalanced that it is not fun for the other players or the DM. Always remember, the goal of D&D is to have fun. I'd also like to state that I'm talking about "tabletop" d&d, rather than theoretical or book d&d. Tabletop d&d being with a human DM residing over the game acting as judge and interpretor of the rules. Often times the rules as written (RAW) have huge gaping holes that any DM in their right mind plugs immediately(for examples of this see the Char Op board). Citing that "if you do this, then this, then this, then this, this character becomes a god at level 3" does not make a class broken, it makes a player broken. I am assuming that classes will be played more or less as they were meant to be played with deviations added for character flavor. Everything up to this point isn't an opinion, nor a fact, merely the guidelines for this thread. I'd also like to say(and this is obviously an opinion, feel free to discuss) that a game becomes fun for all players when they all have a chance to shine in their own way. Thus, it is a DM's responsibility to create situations in which each character can shine. If a rogue never has a chance to be sneaky, disable traps, or use his diplomacy, he will not enjoy his character, wishing instead he'd rolled up that fighter he was thinking about. D&D is as much about roleplaying as it is about the game mechanics(if not more). In that vain, it is a player's responsibility to create a character that has depth. Bob the half-giant rogue/monk/assassin/warblade who only wants to get to level 20 is not good roleplaying. Richard Gond, the fighter who is a member of the order of the Purple Dragons(even though he never took the PrC), and a devote follower of Pelor(even though he gains no spells or powers from it) and visits a temple of Pelor every time he is in a town to donate a few gold and pray is good roleplaying. This responsibility also falls on the DM, to give combat oriented characters roleplaying options. If the party visits a military outpost, even though the bard with -6 strength and 20 charisma might think he's the most personable, and want to be the center of attention, the troops should feel more connection to the humble fighter, who sometimes stutters over his words. As a DM, remember that stats aren't everything. Also, it is worth remembering that many prestige classes introduced in supplement books have orders or factions associated with them. A player cannot just take a level in Red Wizard of Thay because they feel like it. They must be first accepted into the order.
ZeronHitaro 03-23-07, 07:20 PM	Just an addition (won't be discussing much in detail due to lack of experience and knowledge of game balance), I'd like there to be a clear cut definition of "broken"'s subdivision. It's frustrating me when people throw the word broken around without defining it, generating pointless arguing until someone (usually the OP) clarifies what they meant. Subdivisions: "Broken" Overpowered: IMO, should be the only thing broken means. Refers to something that mechanically can make the game unfair/unfun for other players (or even the DM). "Broken" Too weak: IMO, people should just say "underpowered" to avoid confusion with "Broken" Overpowered. Underpowered refering to classes than while may not have anything wrong with them flavor-wise or mechanically, just can't provide the play with enough versatility to overcome any glaring lack of power/technique when compared to other classes. "Broken" I don't like it because of X: IMO, this one is the worst example of mis-using the word broken. X refering to people who say "I don't like this flavor so this class is broken." or "X is broken because X can cast X spell better than my X class." Opinions are fine but shouldn't come into a mechanical arguement when it comes to class mechanics. Ex. Just because you don't like milking cows doesn't mean a Cow Milking class is broken. Or just because Cow Milker Specialist can always milk a cow better than you General Farmer doesn't make it broken either.
TheDarkLord 03-23-07, 07:30 PM	I define something as "Broken" when I as a DM have no easy way to counter it. Many things decried as "Broken" on these boards I have actually no problem with during actual Game Play. I game with a group of people who believe first and foremost of having the "Most Powerful" Character they can build within the concept they want. An example of this is the Spiked Chain. Seriously, fighter's need a boost, this weapon gives them a little one, but it is in no way shape or form as powerful as any mid to high level spell. This also goes hand in hand with Powerful Build/Large Size (I for one do not believe it needs that +1 LA in and of itself). Any creature or being with an intelligence of at least 6 will know not to immediately close with someone who swinging a weapon in a 30ft. Diameter. "Look at Big man, Ock not stupid, Ock shoot big man so Ock not get Crushed."
Archangel62 03-23-07, 07:52 PM	It seems to me that every other thread these days claims that a specific class is either broken, or too weak. I'd like to have a discussion on the nature of a class being broken and both the DM and the player's responsibility in keeping a game well balanced and interesting for all players. I'd like to start by creating a couple of guidelines for this thread: First of all, I'd like to define "broken" as any class, ability, feature (etc.) that is so powerful as to make the game so unbalanced that it is not fun for the other players or the DM. Always remember, the goal of D&D is to have fun. I'd also like to state that I'm talking about "tabletop" d&d, rather than theoretical or book d&d. Tabletop d&d being with a human DM residing over the game acting as judge and interpretor of the rules. Often times the rules as written (RAW) have huge gaping holes that any DM in their right mind plugs immediately(for examples of this see the Char Op board). Citing that "if you do this, then this, then this, then this, this character becomes a god at level 3" does not make a class broken, it makes a player broken. I am assuming that classes will be played more or less as they were meant to be played with deviations added for character flavor. Everything up to this point isn't an opinion, nor a fact, merely the guidelines for this thread. Please, tell me how you know what the intention of the class is? Is the only purpose of the cleric to be the heal and buffbot for the rest of the party? Can fighters only be tanks, can barbarians only be backwoods warriors who don't speak well and act stupid? Or do you understand that classes are collections of abilities, classes are a metagame way of describing a characters abilities even if the person might see it differently. Case in point, a barbarian might see their rage as their internal anger, or they might instead see themselves as channeling their totem spirit and the energies fortifying their bodies and augmenting their power. Or maybe the person trains their body to a point where they can push it to its limits and past it, the idea of a sprinter in principle except as applied to fighting. I'd also like to say(and this is obviously an opinion, feel free to discuss) that a game becomes fun for all players when they all have a chance to shine in their own way. Thus, it is a DM's responsibility to create situations in which each character can shine. If a rogue never has a chance to be sneaky, disable traps, or use his diplomacy, he will not enjoy his character, wishing instead he'd rolled up that fighter he was thinking about. Yes, but the rogue also has sneak attack for combat and enough varying skills that they can usually do SOMETHING in combat. If a DM has to essentially design entire encounters to give a person a chance to function correctly then there is a problem with the class. Maybe a better idea might be that the DM help people make their characters to ensure that the character can properly function in the type of game the DM plans to run. D&D is as much about roleplaying as it is about the game mechanics(if not more). In that vain, it is a player's responsibility to create a character that has depth. Bob the half-giant rogue/monk/assassin/warblade who only wants to get to level 20 is not good roleplaying. Richard Gond, the fighter who is a member of the order of the Purple Dragons(even though he never took the PrC), and a devote follower of Pelor(even though he gains no spells or powers from it) and visits a temple of Pelor every time he is in a town to donate a few gold and pray is good roleplaying. This responsibility also falls on the DM, to give combat oriented characters roleplaying options. If the party visits a military outpost, even though the bard with -6 strength and 20 charisma might think he's the most personable, and want to be the center of attention, the troops should feel more connection to the humble fighter, who sometimes stutters over his words. As a DM, remember that stats aren't everything. Yes, RP does exist in the game but it SHOULD NOT REPLACE MECHANICS. Now you can argue that a fighter might be a better representative, and maybe give him a circumstance bonus when dealing with other men at arms, however what you are showing is the idea of the DM ignoring rules to benefit a player. Also, please don't equate multiple classes with poor RP, taking multiple classes doesn't make someone a poor roleplayer anymore than taking one class makes them a good one. Also, it is worth remembering that many prestige classes introduced in supplement books have orders or factions associated with them. A player cannot just take a level in Red Wizard of Thay because they feel like it. They must be first accepted into the order. Please explain how 'many' of these classes are designed as orders. Some are also just set up as a mixture of two styles in order to allow a bit more versatility. Equally, some are augmentors of an individual style. If a DM demands a written justification for every class and prestige class a player takes then I would argue it's less about balance, more on control.
icnivad 03-23-07, 08:43 PM	ZeronHitaro: Good additions, thanks for clarifying that stuff up. (I think I need a milking cow class in my game.) TheDarkLord: I agree here, too. I don't think there's anything wrong with powerful characters, unless someone's powerful character is overshadowing someone elses. If they are all equal, or strong in different ways, then there's no problem. Archangel62: I see your point about the intention of a class, and perhaps I should clarify a bit. I didn't mean that fighters must be dumb and strong, merely that there are acceptable limits to how far you can stretch a class. An example would be a Dragon Shaman who has never seen a dragon, and couldn't care less about them. It brakes the general precept of the class. The rogue example was just an example. I was merely trying to illustrate that players have specific tasks that they envision their characters being good at, and should have an opportunity to use those abilities. This doesn't mean that the DM should go out of his way to force that type of encounter on the group, but that he should not prevent it. Players will tend to gravitate toward the types of tasks they see their characters doing unless the DM prevents it. If a diplomatic character is always tries to find out about a town's politics whenever visiting, the DM shouldn't just "Riff, another vortex and you're swept into a dungeon, start fighting". But I do see your point in this, too, that perhaps this is partly a problem of the DM not explaining the type of game he wants to run, or the player not paying attention. Again, you took my comment about roleplaying to it's extreme. A circumstance bonus to the fighter for being of like mind to the army is a fine solution to the problem I posed. "Please explain how 'many' of these classes are designed as orders." Not all, not even most, but many. From the Complete Adventurer alone, the Daggerspell Mage, Daggerspell Shaper, Fochlucan Lyrist, Ghost Faced Killer, Nightsong Enforcer, Nightsong Infiltrator, Ollam, Shadowbane Inquisitor, Shadowbane Stalker and Wild Plains Outrider are all prestige classes that have an order or clan associated with them. I'm not saying that joining should be impossible, or even hard, but just that it should be present. Players should be reminded that with the power that many prestige classes offer comes responsibility to the order. You don't just "poof" become a member of the Nightsong, you have to join by whatever means the order requires.
Archangel62 03-24-07, 04:24 AM	Z Archangel62: I see your point about the intention of a class, and perhaps I should clarify a bit. I didn't mean that fighters must be dumb and strong, merely that there are acceptable limits to how far you can stretch a class. An example would be a Dragon Shaman who has never seen a dragon, and couldn't care less about them. It brakes the general precept of the class. True, but the person might also have an idea to reflavor it. A slightly different example, I had a psychic warrior in one of my games, the guy had never heard of psionics, and when they were talked about he was skeptical. He was a member of the Iron Hand, they were a monastic order of warriors who trained to push their bodies to and beyond their physical limits, to ignore pain and to ignore injuries. He didn't take any really flashy or obvious powers, just a lot of self buff and some self healing, the only really austentatious one he took was vampiric blade and that one was RPed as him learning to draw strength from the enemy, to draw strength from an enemies defeat. The rogue example was just an example. I was merely trying to illustrate that players have specific tasks that they envision their characters being good at, and should have an opportunity to use those abilities. This doesn't mean that the DM should go out of his way to force that type of encounter on the group, but that he should not prevent it. Players will tend to gravitate toward the types of tasks they see their characters doing unless the DM prevents it. If a diplomatic character is always tries to find out about a town's politics whenever visiting, the DM shouldn't just "Riff, another vortex and you're swept into a dungeon, start fighting". But I do see your point in this, too, that perhaps this is partly a problem of the DM not explaining the type of game he wants to run, or the player not paying attention. Ok, we more or less agree here. I was trying to explain that some classes don't function well in certain game types but also, almost all classes have SOMETHING that they can do in a given situation, the fighter is one that doesn't have many utilities outside of combat so I confess to being a little, or very, frustrated with that design. Where other classes like the rogue or spellcasters have multiple uses in and out of combat. Again, you took my comment about roleplaying to it's extreme. A circumstance bonus to the fighter for being of like mind to the army is a fine solution to the problem I posed. I was simply trying to point out that RP is not a good way to argue whether or not a class works. I can RP a commoner or a godling, that doesn't mean that either one is a good idea in the context of a standard party. The DM can ad-hoc things for a character but there is also a certain level of contrivance. A low strength bard that is a master at diplomacy will probably get similar or better results than the fighter still because he knows how to read people and what to play on, the fighter has cameraderie. Now, the Bard might be better off talking to the brass while the fighter gets info from the grunts, but it's still a bit of a DM intervention thing. But my other comment on what constitutes good and bad RP stands, you implied that a person who had multiple classes or prestige classes was somehow a bad roleplayer just because they had those multiple classes and prestige classes. That is not the case and it irritates me when people make that assumption. "Please explain how 'many' of these classes are designed as orders." Not all, not even most, but many. From the Complete Adventurer alone, the Daggerspell Mage, Daggerspell Shaper, Fochlucan Lyrist, Ghost Faced Killer, Nightsong Enforcer, Nightsong Infiltrator, Ollam, Shadowbane Inquisitor, Shadowbane Stalker and Wild Plains Outrider are all prestige classes that have an order or clan associated with them. I'm not saying that joining should be impossible, or even hard, but just that it should be present. Players should be reminded that with the power that many prestige classes offer comes responsibility to the order. You don't just "poof" become a member of the Nightsong, you have to join by whatever means the order requires. True, the point I was trying to make was just that a DM shouldn't try to throw extra roadblocks into the players path just because they can.
AllisterH 03-24-07, 09:47 AM	Well, here's what I consider broken. The Planar Shepherd prestige class. Here's something which is different than you're typical cries of broken which are "you have to get Feat X from book Y and be race A from book C and then be in situation Beta and you can do 1,000,000 pts of damage" As written, the class itself EXPLICITLY tells you, how broken it is. Think about that, the class tells you "ok, here's how you break the game". Nothing I've seen comes close to this. Then there are a couple of spells which are broken when you compare them with spells in the same book or other books. Gate: Now, we would still call this spell overpowered but what really makes it bad is that if you comapre it to Planar Binding (8th level spell, max HD of 16) and Summon Monster IX both spells in the same BLOODY book, you wonder what the hell is going on here. For example the jump in power from Summon Monster VIII to IX and Lesser Planar to Planar shows us what an increase in spell level so what's Gate excuse? TimeStop: Here's another spell that I think WOTC would rewrite if given a chance. You can see this if you look at PHB II. Notice the increase in power from Lesser Celerity (2nd level spell, gain a move action) to Celerity (4th level spell, gain a standard action) to Greater Celerity (8th level spell, gain a full round action ) and in every case, you're dazed afterwards. Now compare this to Timestop. You gain 1d4 rounds +1!!! What the hell? If 4E ever comes, you better believe Timestop and Gate are going to be hit by the nerf bat if WOTC has its way.
Thunder Dragonbane 03-24-07, 11:50 AM	WotC will not change gate or timestop in any way ever. They wrote them and both being 9th level spells are supposed to be hard to come by.
Leo 03-24-07, 12:01 PM	As someone already said, if you reach lv17, you're suposed to start doing really impressive stuff, and in D&D; there is nothing more impressive than spells, since they are 1-shots, so yes, there need to be amazing 9th level spells. And gate is just as strong as your DM allows. After all, who said there are any solars/balors at all in your campaign? It's not you who decides what is in the campaign world, it's the DM. Like just it isn't very realistic that EVERYTHING in the MM and DMG and Splatbooks exists in that specific world. The DM just uses what he wants.
AllisterH 03-24-07, 01:00 PM	WotC will not change gate or timestop in any way ever. They wrote them and both being 9th level spells are supposed to be hard to come by. 1. WOTC did not write them. Gygax and Arsenon wrote them back in the 1E days when the idea of players actually being at high enough level to cast 9th level spells was ludicrous. As evidence, during 1E, Dragon had an issue where they statted the "main characters" from Greyhawk (namely, the people whose names are on the feats and spells in the "base" system). Only Mord himself was at 18th level, everyone was lower. 2. WOTC admits they did not test high level play enough. If they did, given that WOTC has never come close to putting Ancenstral Recall back into circulation even in another form, I doubt they would've had any problem nerfing those two spells. 3. It still doesn't excuse the blatant jump in power Gate has when compared to similar jumps among its kin. Similarly, Timestop should NOT be that powerful.