Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Xavim 02-19-04, 06:06 AM	My gods does it not stop? Every day on these boards I see threads using this term, slamming everything from Shield to spiked chains as being "Game Breaking" and "Unbalanced" and it confuses me to no end. Is there no group out there that actually tries to play the rules as written? I'm aware of the importance of Rule 0 but whenever I DMed I always used that to cover anything that was lacking in the rules such as ad hoc combat values and other cool storyline oriented awareness. When 3.0 came out I made the conversion and found the system to be everything I had ever wanted in D&D, it was a system that gave me what I wanted most, flexibility without the need for my house rules. I also found the game to much better balance the characters in terms of everything having an equal stand and stare value throughout. Clerics had a combat presence, fighters were cool, and rogues were just too much fun. But then I left home and came to university,\where I played with people other than my 3 brothers for a change and I was introduced to a strange concept. People thought many of the spells where unbalanced, overpowered and in fact claimed they were insane and 'broken'. I saw complaints about wizards with high armour class, polymorph and shapechange problems, and my personal favorite an utterly insane interpretation of Timestop + haste that basically worked in a crazy balooning effect that I can't even begin to consider how he came up with it. How I wonder did these people survive the days of 2e Power word kill, characters ACTUALLY failing a save and the fighter hose that was stoneskin. 4th level spell making you IMMUNE to the next 14 or so attacks by ANYTHING would make most of the people I've seen recently curl into a ball and cry for WotC to fix it. And for the life of me I cannot fathom what they are complaining about. NEVER in all of my years of DMing have I ever changed a spell. The only time I ever house ruled was in favour of increasing character concepts and expanding flexibility (no demi-human Paladin's my butt) and my games went fine. When my fighter players in 2e encountered the wizard with stoneskin they adapted. They dropped things on them to pin them, used contact poison, or, as was mentioned in the spell, strangled them. They didn't think anything of it, they just moved on. Same with 3.0, the presence of Harm, Shapechange, Polymorph any Object, Astral Projection, Timestop, etc. did not diswade the presence of non-spellcasters, in fact, my world as DM continued as it had in the past. Without problem. I don't know, maybe I just got lucky and never encountered a real powergamer like some of you more victimised DMs, but I just can't see the problem with anything that has been published by WotC and wonder why, if you dispise so many of the game why do you play it? It seems to me that 3.0 brought about an age of players and DMs not wanting to make rulings and descisions either from an inherant desire to sit on the fence in situations, or from the desire to be proven right. Everyone wants an officail answer to everything when even the slightest glimmer of logic and reasoning would give you your answer. It seems that no one wants to work within the rules anymore. What ever happened to rules being just that, rules? (end rant)
Incenjucar 02-19-04, 06:17 AM	If flaws are not discovered, isolated, and dealt with, they will not be mended. If polymorph, for instance, said, "You can become any creature below deific status that you know of.", you'll have a bunch of great wyrm gold dragons that used to be the wizard's familiar. That sort of thing has been dealt with accordingly, but many other issues remain. Much of it has to do with the epic game's current form (The 2e rules were much less disruptive to the game).
Tenzhi 02-19-04, 06:33 AM	The only 3rd Edition spell I ever personally had a problem with was Haste - I'm just opposed to spellcasters slinging spells twice or more per round. Of course, I don't go around decrying everything I don't like as being universally broken - I just fix it for my campaign and move on.
Tzor 02-19-04, 09:12 AM	Yes isn't it wonderful? :D I really am serious here. I started playing AD&D in 1980 with 1st edition. In first edition, every class had their own spell descriptions. The same spell for a cleric might work differently for a wizard. Everything was table based, non linear progressions were common. There were no non combat rules at all to speak of. The fact that someone says that something is "broke" is only evidence that the rest of the rules are so logical and cohesive that the something actually can stand out and be noticed. Back in first edition, you had to be exceptionally over the top to be noticed as "broke." Anti-paladins, for example, were broke. So whenever someone complains about something be broke, think instead of everything else he didn't complain about that isn't broke. Cool isn't it. :D
Geethree 02-19-04, 09:27 AM	If my PCs want to take advantage of a powerful spell, so be it. I'm not going to needlessly restrict my PCs just because I have balance issues. There's nothing a DM can't handle anyway. Nothing. This doesn't mean I allow them to do stupid things. 1st level farmboys with two weapon fighting and a double sword better have a good reason to have these things. I apply the same logic to anything that is "broken." If it doesn't make sense, you can't have it. And it doesn't matter how amazingly powerful your fighter is. 75 damage a round doesn't sneak past magical traps. An AC of 32 doesn't convince nobles to lend you money.
Slivvy Gaidin 02-19-04, 10:40 AM	I think Tzor's post pretty much sums up the whole issue. 3rd edition is like your car, just after you have washed and polished it. Its so shiny, that even the smallest speck of dust stands out like a horrid aberration. How I wonder did these people survive the days of 2e Power word kill, characters ACTUALLY failing a save and the fighter hose that was stoneskin. 4th level spell making you IMMUNE to the next 14 or so attacks by ANYTHING would make most of the people I've seen recently curl into a ball and cry for WotC to fix it. I think that with the advent of 3rd edition came these message boards, and a whole slew of new gamers. People have always had their opinions of the games they played- its just that now we can hear their opinions
B4Real 02-19-04, 11:00 AM	I think that with the advent of 3rd edition came these message boards, and a whole slew of new gamers. People have always had their opinions of the games they played- its just that now we can hear their opinions Very true. ~B4Real
Zagan 02-19-04, 11:01 AM	i think that nothing is realy overpowerd. Magic isn't, because the spells and the magic weave etc are a part of the fantastic universe and they are supposed to be a little "overpowerd". This all is fun. If you dont like smth. then change it or leave it. and as tenzhi said you can do everything in this world of dreams and imagination and thats one of the main rules. Even a powerplayer has a weakness (know your enemy to best it in battle), find it and use it.
The Hanged Man 02-19-04, 02:17 PM	Originally posted by Xavim I don't know, maybe I just got lucky and never encountered a real powergamer like some of you more victimised DMs, but I just can't see the problem with anything that has been published by WotC and wonder why, if you dispise so many of the game why do you play it? Yeah, the Model T is a great car. Why's everybody want faster, more comfortable, safer cars? The Atari64 is a great game system. Why's everybody want better graphics, more memory, more complicated games? Penecillin's great medecine. Why's everybody want better, more effective ways to treat disease? :rolleyes: Personally, I like and need to hear what things work and what things don't under 3.0 and 3.5, and balance is a great deal of what does and doesn't work in the system. I can love a game and want it to be better. Jeez.
Anhur 02-21-04, 12:39 PM	I think there is a point here that no one has brought up yet. The rules are simply one person's view of how to implement certain ideas in a game, that might or might not fit with how you want to reflect your world. Simply put, the rules are a guideline, not an absolute, and are not infallible or sacred. The D&D ruleset works well to emulate a very high fantasy, magic-heavy game, but it doesn't work so well to do gritty fantasy, or to reflect mythology. In order to accomodate other styles and tastes, its perfectly fine to alter the rules you don't like and go with it. Its YOUR game after all, not the suit's at WotC. I personally think the game is "broken" in regards to the quick level advancement in 3E, the over-reliance on magic items and magic , certain spells, certain class combinations, and rapidly inflating attack bonuses that are not reflected in defense. So I changed those things for my game, and it works fine. I also don't allows PC elves, dwarves, gnomes, 1/2 orcs, 1/2 elves, or halflings in my games, and I slowed spellcating down to casters gaining one new level of spells every 3 character levels, and no 7th-9th level spells. I don't allow half dire kobold/half gelatinous mind flayers wombats in my game, or use most of the mosters in the MM. And you know what? Everything works beautifully and my kneecaps haven't been busted by the WotC campaign nazi police. ;) The only right way to play the game is the way you and your group enjoy.
Tehril 02-21-04, 12:48 PM	I find humour is the best way to deal with these inane posts... For more of that, might I direct anyone who is tired of such rants and wishes to vent to my post directed at this problem :D http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=129263 NOTE: Serious talk can stay here... but for lighter stuff, head there ;)
boschdevil 02-21-04, 01:05 PM	Originally posted by The Hanged Man Yeah, the Model T is a great car. Why's everybody want faster, more comfortable, safer cars? The Atari64 is a great game system. Why's everybody want better graphics, more memory, more complicated games? Penecillin's great medecine. Why's everybody want better, more effective ways to treat disease? :rolleyes: Personally, I like and need to hear what things work and what things don't under 3.0 and 3.5, and balance is a great deal of what does and doesn't work in the system. I can love a game and want it to be better. Jeez. I'm thinking that the disconnect is in the term "broken". Personally, I see very little in 3.0 or 3.5 that is "broken", and what is "broken" is much less in quantity than in previous editions. However, I see some things that can be "optimized and improved". This pretty much is in line with what your examples illustrate. The Model T, Atari64, and Penecillin weren't "broken", but they were in essence "optimized and improved". Just my opinion.
Count Arioch the 28th 02-21-04, 01:08 PM	Everyone is avoiding one thing, that I will bring up. Broken is a word that gets thrown around WAY too damn often. Having a character with a good weapon and feat synergy is not broken. (Spiked chain fighters are NOT broken!) Things that are blatantly overpowered comapred to everyone else are NOT broken. (Druids are not broken. Clerics are not broken.) Things that are effective are NOT broken. (Using a glove of storing to hold a flaming shocking frost acidic sonic sword +1 in stasis for when you need it is NOT broken.) What then, is broken? "Broken" should only refer to things that, if left un house ruled, has the potential to totally ruin a game world. For example, a strict ruling of 3.0 rules would allow someone with a rod of metamagic to empower Simulacrum twice, thereby having a copy of yourself with MORE experience than you for 500 gp and a few EXP. The simulacrum had it's own EXP total, so it could spend 500 GP and it's own experience to copy itself, and so on, and so one. You now have a self-replicating army of snowmne that are totally under your control, are more powerful than you, and you can make as many as you want, 500 GP is chump change by the time you can cast Simulacrum. Now, I can hear the counter argument now. "Any DM worth his salt would stop that right away!" If you say that, you're agreeing with me that it's a dangerous, game breaking rule that needed to be house ruled away, or else the game would collapse. (Having a mutaual agreement with your players to never use that spell IS a house rule, and the best way to make them, if I may be so bold.) That being said, there are few things actually broken with 3.5. The broken aspects of 3.5, and to a lesser extent, 3.0, are discussed on this board HERE (http://frost.bbboy.net/thegamingden-viewthread?forum=1&thread=59) Also, I would like to add that most people don't house rule things because they're broken (Although they might use that word to describe it) it's a little different. Most peaople house rule because they just didn't like that rule. That's just fine, in fact, the game designers encourage you to change things to suit your players enjoyment. (For example, about half the base classes in my world are altered in some way. Not because I thought they were broken, but mostly I thought they weren't how I envisioned the class. Alright, a few classes I find a bit underpowered, so I boosted them a bit. But a bit underpowered is a far cry from game destroying.) I hope this post has helped to shed some light on this subject. Hopefully, it also might get the word Broken to be used when it's called for, instead of it being a euphamism for "I don't like this." Because, after all, not liking something until you change it is a time honored D&D tradition.
Willie the Duck 02-21-04, 02:01 PM	Why Xavim, you poor dear. You come to these entirely optional message boards and find that a bunch of people without enough to do are furiously finding loopholes and asking the game designers to close them? Why don't you lie down on the couch and let mommy (mommy named Willie, hmmm?) get you a plate of cookies and a glass of milk. Count Arioch the 28th, that's your definition of broken, but clearly isn't the one used on these boards.
Luris_Blear 02-21-04, 02:58 PM	The one problem I've always had with "Broken" is this: by whose standards? If a whole group is powergaming (other systems lend themselves to this very well), then it can be fun. If only one is powergaming, then a competant GM will also take that into consideration and make the game even more fun for everyone. Then you just have to consider that everyone's game is different.
zodiki 02-21-04, 03:18 PM	A spell here, a feat there, a combo there does not break the system. The 3e+ system as a game is rock-solid. Brokeness is also very context related even without DM intervention.
Incenjucar 02-21-04, 03:32 PM	A nod to Arioch. In general, ALL buzz words get overused. Let's all just be glad nobody uses "proactive" here. Flaws, though, are still flaws, and while they may be subjective, in general, anything the DM has to alter her or his game for is an issue (like 3e Haste+Time Stop combos).
Count Arioch the 28th 02-21-04, 09:24 PM	Originally posted by Willie the Duck Count Arioch the 28th, that's your definition of broken, but clearly isn't the one used on these boards. Everyone thinks there's two R's in Sherbet, but that does not make it so.
Oberoni 02-22-04, 06:59 PM	I agree with the Count on this one. The system's got problems, sure, and gathering and discussing them allows the game to advance. But crying about things and calling everything "broken" is dumb. Third Edition really is a great system, and it's a disservice to all to claim that every one of the small number of problems is "broken.'
Kaya Kenobi 02-22-04, 07:17 PM	Nothing is broken. As a DM, you control everything. Someone brings up a broken, insane, or wrong combo or concept, nip it right in the bud before it grows into a problem. Someone tries a bag of rats, kill it right there as illogical. Someone tries an Imbue w/ Spell Ability to qualify as a cleric, again, kill it. Whatever happens, you have the final say as a DM. If a player questions you, tell the player because you're the DM, or because it's unbalancing and unfair to the others, or even whatever.. Or you could allow it, and then have some NPC later on pull the same stunt. What works for the PCs works for the NPCs.. Sure, allow the bag of rats combo, wait a month.. And do it to the same PC. That's all there is to it. You're DM, you have the final say.
Tenzhi 02-23-04, 06:57 AM	Originally posted by Count Arioch the 28th Everyone thinks there's two R's in Sherbet, but that does not make it so. I don't think there are two Rs in "sherbet" but there ARE, in fact, two Rs in "sherbert" which - according to Merriam-Webster Dictionary, American Heritage Dictionary, and Princeton University - is an acceptable spelling of the word. Of course, an argument could be made that it wasn't an acceptable spelling until enough people thought that there should be two Rs in the word - in which case everyone thinking that it was so did indeed make it so. All of which doesn't counter the intended point, I think, but it certainly points to a flaw in the analogy itself... unless the point was of cleverly ironic intent. :twitch:
Xavim 02-23-04, 07:18 AM	Originally posted by Willie the Duck Why Xavim, you poor dear. You come to these entirely optional message boards and find that a bunch of people without enough to do are furiously finding loopholes and asking the game designers to close them? Why don't you lie down on the couch and let mommy (mommy named Willie, hmmm?) get you a plate of cookies and a glass of milk. Count Arioch the 28th, that's your definition of broken, but clearly isn't the one used on these boards. Wow that was oh so terribly insightful. I thank you ever so for pointing out the error of my ways. Heaven forbid I should try to understand people's distress over what I have found to be by far the most stable and 'balanced' version D&D has taken yet. I simply can't understand how they can find anything in the rules to be this 'broken' they mention when they're free to change the rules as they see fit. Why on Earth do they feel they need officail sanction for their point of views, or feel that if someone questions their right to complain about a system they decided to spend $100+ dollars on to begin with they must resort to useless sardonic replies that don't contribute in the least to the conversation. A Spiked Chain wielding Fighter is not 'broken' he's dangerous and should, you know, not be attacked head on? Kindof like you don't fight a Shadowdancer in the dark? People complain about Timestop annialating their parties when the party should have a million and one anti-death measures up at that level. The trend from what I have seen is for people to want sweeping reforms of the core rules so that not only is their game the 'official' one but it seems that they want to promote the removal of actual combat tactics in favour of *Run* *Smash* *Grin* In 2e when my players encountered a stoneskin wearing mage when they were fighters, they snuck up on him/surrounded him and strangled the bugger. They worked around it, which IMO is what you're supposed to do. Got Grappling Dire Bear Druid problems? Don't get close enough to get grappled! Poison exists for a reason, use it to cripple his STR, or attack him with shadows. Why nerf this or nerf that or tweak this or tweak that when everything you could possibly ever want to do can be done within the rules as written (Barring vastly different campaign styles such as low magic. IMO a historically based d20 modern is the best basis for a low magic world). There are ways around Time Stop, the interpretation of Simulectrum is open to debate as to whether or not it has exp since it can never gain it. Since allowing it to have exp is what people call 'broken' well then the not broken interpretation must be what the designers had in mind. The funny thing is that no matter how 'broken' a rule interpretation is, there are tonnes of people out there that will defend that obviously nonsensical ruling to the death even though it 'breaks' their games! I agree with Kaya Kenobi. NOTHING is broken. There is nothing a DM cannot handle if they take the path of least resistence. When faced with two differening interpretations just rule on the one that is least disruptive to the game and move on, that was more than likely what the designers intended anyway. Such a method prevents stupid 'munchkining' like Awaken and Astral Projection/Balor infinite item duplication. I guess I'll just never understand the problem Incenjucar. What's so bad about Timestop + Haste? Its counterable, and is only devestating when a badguy can get the jump on the party. And then he'd better hope they weren't just Astral Projecting because he just lost half his spell sellection. But of course what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Sure there are areas it could improve, no system is perfect however there is a difference between making recomendations and bellowing about how the designers must have been smoking something fierce when they wrote up the rules. Which I might add is the approach most of those crying out 'broken' every second day choose. I just don't see it and I'm trying to understand what is in the system that is so glaringly bad. I had no problems with Haste, Timestop, Astral Projection is a great spell, Clerics are fine, and infact require a good deal of thought to play right. I've been thinking about mages so much I've forgotten how to play them well. I'm sorry I just don't see it and heaven forbid me from deciding to rant. Apparently you can't do that anymore without someone slamming you. Thanks for all of the serious replies people. Nice to see not EVERYONE get's foaming at the mouth at the sight of a rant. I while I agree that somethings require DM adjudication on, I guess I just differ on the opinion that that's a bad thing.
Archtyrant Terevoth 02-23-04, 07:55 AM	Originally posted by Xavim I simply can't understand how they can find anything in the rules to be this 'broken' they mention when they're free to change the rules as they see fit. That my friend is the oberoni fallacy. Just because you can change a rule doesn't make it balanced. In fact if it were balanced, you probably wouldn't have had to change it in the first place. Got Grappling Dire Bear Druid problems? Don't get close enough to get grappled! Poison exists for a reason, use it to cripple his STR, or attack him with shadows. Why nerf this or nerf that or tweak this or tweak that when everything you could possibly ever want to do can be done within the rules as written (Barring vastly different campaign styles such as low magic. IMO a historically based d20 modern is the best basis for a low magic world). As for the druid, what do you do with your greatsword weilding barbarians? If all the NPCs avoid melee, then they now suck because you felt the need to counter the broken druid. So the druid is now casting flamestrikes and your barbarian PC is sitting there saying, "boy this game sucks" because he can no longer do what his character does best (even though the druid did it better). That is why we nerf. Changing tactics drastically can screw over legitimate PCs who aren't playing broken crap. If you find you need to avoid melee entirely as a DM because the druid (not even a melee class) is dominating it, then it is time to draw forth the nerf stick. A druid can be hands down better at fighting than a fighter. And this is flat out wrong. I agree with Kaya Kenobi. NOTHING is broken. There is nothing a DM cannot handle if they take the path of least resistence. Huh? Nothing is broken? no matter how ridiculous... I find that really hard to believe... If magic missile did 1000 damage, or you had a fighter with a +2000 sword that sold for 1 gp, I think you'd say both of those were broken. If nothing can be broken, then why have rules at all? After all, any solution is by your definition balanced and playable(since it's not broken), so why bother with rules after all? I guess I'll just never understand the problem Incenjucar. What's so bad about Timestop + Haste? Its counterable, and is only devestating when a badguy can get the jump on the party. Counterable? How? He acts, casts the spell then you're party is dead before you take another action. "Just win initiative" is not a valid counter. There is next to nothing you can do to survive a 3.0 time stop + haste, double disjunction, mass horrid wilting barrage/assorted deathspell barrage. You're just dead. Picture it... you're playing a 20th level fighter. The 20th level mage wins initiative, casts haste + timestop, followed by 2 disjunctions and 6 horrid wiltings (or 6 disintigrates or whatever, pick an offensvie spell any spell). You're screwed, flat out you're just dead and no defense you can have will possibly save you, because the disjunctions already destroyed it. I just don't see it and I'm trying to understand what is in the system that is so glaringly bad. I had no problems with Haste, Timestop, Astral Projection is a great spell, Clerics are fine, and infact require a good deal of thought to play right. I've been thinking about mages so much I've forgotten how to play them well. Astral projection is as broke as they come. It is the very antithesis of the risk for reward paradigm that D&D is based on. In effect you just sit down in your sanctuary with a mind blank, astral project and you can't die. There is zero risk to being an adventurer, in fact what you do is no longer adventuring you're just an unkillable god. Just read astral projection again... you don't find anything wrong with a wizard just sitting back in his lair with a mind blank being totally undetectable and projecting at zero risk to himself or his items? What's the fun of the game? Where's the risk? And remember only casters can do it... so fighters... well they're just useless then, because they can still die. While astral projection versus astral projection battles may be fun in your game, most DMs want something a bit tangible rather than the infinite duels of two mage gods who can never truly die. As for 3.0 haste... Double spells per round, and when you cast it, you get a free action just for casting it, meaning you lose nothing... Who wouldn't use this spell? What situation wouldn't it be useful. You get a kickback of a free action on the round you cast it, meaning you lose absolutely nothing from casting it. Why cast your favorite offensive spell when you can cast haste AND your favorite offensive spell in the same round? Time stop... crazy powerful... lets you wipe someone out in one round. It's the king of ridiculously powerful nuke spells. One 9th level spell is deadly. Casting 3 of them in a row is overkill. I suspect you really have not came up against the caliber of powergamer that absolutely requires nerfing. If you play 3.0 by the book, a good high level PC playing a high level wizard will have any DM pulling his hair out, regardless of experience.
Count Arioch the 28th 02-23-04, 08:24 AM	Originally posted by Kaya Kenobi Nothing is broken. As a DM, you control everything. Someone brings up a broken, insane, or wrong combo or concept, nip it right in the bud before it grows into a problem. Someone tries a bag of rats, kill it right there as illogical. Someone tries an Imbue w/ Spell Ability to qualify as a cleric, again, kill it. Whatever happens, you have the final say as a DM. If a player questions you, tell the player because you're the DM, or because it's unbalancing and unfair to the others, or even whatever.. Or you could allow it, and then have some NPC later on pull the same stunt. What works for the PCs works for the NPCs.. Sure, allow the bag of rats combo, wait a month.. And do it to the same PC. That's all there is to it. You're DM, you have the final say. I would like ti exemplify this post as a perfect example of the Oberoni fallacy. Kaya obviously beleives things are broken. However, he denies it, then goes on about how certain things ARE broken, and need to be fixed by the DM. If nothing was broken, as he claims, then he wouldn't have to fix loopholes by house ruling. In short, his entire post is in contradiction with his thesis statement. If he truly beleived nothing was broken, then he would allow bag of rats fighters. embue with SLA to take MyTh levels, casters to create an army of super-powerful simulacra, use Shapechange to get an infinite amount of gold, use Fabricate to break the world's economy, allow demons to cast unhallow on every place in the world to keep celestials from ever setting foot in the world, and any number of broken features. If he truly beleived nothing was broken, he would allow all that, and do nothing to stop it. His need to house rule those things is absolute, 100% proof that he agrees that certain things ARE broken, and need ot be fixed for the game itself will be ruined. Sorry that got a bit ranty, but I just wish to straighten this point out. "Oberoni fallacy" is another thing that gets thrown around a lot, without regard to it's meaning. And I don't care about common usage, if everyone but me spells Sherbet with a second r, then everyone is stupid but me, including the dictionary. Screw common usage changing words! I wish we had something like the French do, an organization to keep dumb people from permanantly altering the language through common usage of grammatically incorrect terms. Then maybe I could have decent grammar, instead of trying to figure out if something was correct, of just looks correct because some yahoo says it is. But that's another thread.
Kaya Kenobi 02-23-04, 12:25 PM	Originally posted by Count Arioch the 28th I would like ti exemplify this post as a perfect example of the Oberoni fallacy. Whatever... Don't know what that is. Kaya obviously beleives things are broken. However, he denies it, then goes on about how certain things ARE broken, and need to be fixed by the DM. If nothing was broken, as he claims, then he wouldn't have to fix loopholes by house ruling. How's an enemy doing what the PCs try a houserule? How's adjudicating rule 0 a houserule? If the intent is game balance, then the DM has all the right to do whatever they please to do so, right? Only houserules I have are fixes, most of which may have been addressed by 3.5. Some, though... Haven't. I don't care if you're going to throw around some term, but don't assume anything about what my intents are. If there's a loophole, find a logical reason why it doesn't work and stop it. I have, personally, banned only a few spells outright (teleport) and changed other spells (harm/heal) without disrupting game balance. In short, his entire post is in contradiction with his thesis statement. If he truly beleived nothing was broken, then he would allow bag of rats fighters. embue with SLA to take MyTh levels, casters to create an army of super-powerful simulacra, use Shapechange to get an infinite amount of gold, use Fabricate to break the world's economy, allow demons to cast unhallow on every place in the world to keep celestials from ever setting foot in the world, and any number of broken features. And you're wrong. Bag of rats? Not allowed. It doesn't make sense how hitting each one individually makes for an infinite great cleave. At best, the cleave would have already occured on the rats, not the last guy. Imbue is a spell, not a class. MT requires class levels, not a spell. Easy fix. Never ran into the Similacrum, sorry.. Shapechange for gold, how? .... Now this is a rant.. If he truly beleived nothing was broken, he would allow all that, and do nothing to stop it. His need to house rule those things is absolute, 100% proof that he agrees that certain things ARE broken, and need ot be fixed for the game itself will be ruined. And YOU twisted my words for your own meaning. A DM who can competently DM knows that things must be in place for balance. If the DM allowed everything, the enemies should be able to do the same. If the DM didn't allow everything, the enemies would still do the same as a PC. So, yes, I believe nothing is broken because everything supposedly abusable only needs a rule 0 clarification, not a Sage answer that allows the crap you posted above. Whatever your point is about some stupid fallacy I have never read of, just the phrase, it makes no sense to me. So, whatever.
WizO_Catoblepas 02-23-04, 12:30 PM	Ok it looks like this thread is getting a little too personal, so it's time to close it. As a parting note, if you like the rules the way they are, that's great. If you want to change them, that's great despite whatever fallacy term is assigned to it. Finally, if you don't like the rules and want to amplify the situation saying it's "broken", that's great. The only thing that is not good is when you make it personal, so don't.