Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Earthcrosser599 07-23-05, 03:04 PM	These days the most common thing I hear when I'm playing D&D is, "so and so is broken." All the time. Warmage? Broken! Warlock? Broken! Psionics? Broken! Exalted Deeds? Broken! Power Attack? Broken! Aboleth Goo? Broken! Orb of Fire? Broken! Scrolls? Broken! I think I've heard just about everything ever printed as being broken. Rant over. Recently I've gotten into this state where when I'm running the game I don't ban or change anything printed, and when I play in games where other DMs disallow certain stuff, I go to great lengths to dispute it (assuming they're basing it off of their balance issues rather than campaign setting.) I tend to do this regardless of whether or not I want to play with said material. I don't know...from what I've experienced and my playtesting of everything "broken" I can get my hands on, things that are printed are there for a reason. They work the way they do for a reason. I'm not sure where I'm going with this, maybe I just had to vent some steam.
Venom of the Yuan Ti 07-23-05, 04:03 PM	These days the most common thing I hear when I'm playing D&D is, "so and so is broken." All the time. Warmage? Broken! Not broken, just flat. Warlock? Broken! Bent at worst, fixed with a few minur tweaks. Psionics? Broken! No, just very different from magic. Exalted Deeds? Broken! HEAVY roll playing needed for pretty much all of it. Power Attack? Broken! Since when? Aboleth Goo? Broken! Only with a poor DM Orb of Fire? Broken! Bent at worst. Scrolls? Broken! WHAT?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
Earthcrosser599 07-23-05, 05:12 PM	I don't think any of it is broken, but this is what the people who "know" about D&D tell me.
EvilDuck 07-23-05, 05:20 PM	Warmage? Underpowered: lacks the utility spells Warlock? Underpowered: can't EB more than once a round, SLAs aren't as useful as spells Psionics? Less broken than core spellcasting Exalted Deeds? Requires heavy RP consequences Power Attack? No. Supreme Power Attack? Maybe Aboleth Goo? Since when do aboleths sell their goo? Orb of Fire? Anything fire=not broken. Everyone and their brother is resistant to fire. Scrolls? Okay, whoever said that needs to eat their PHB.
Angus Cotton 07-23-05, 05:42 PM	So it is 'broken'? who the hell cares? I have DMed different peeps with more than my share of percieved broken characters and I find that no matter what, I can still challenge the PCs. Even if the PCs are indestructible and I know the mobs I am throwing them up against won't kill them, the PCs DON'T know that until the combat is a few rounds then..and then, it is almost over anyway. Players and DM have fun alike, so as I said, who cares? Most of the complaints I hear about this sort of 'broken' characters as from people playing OTHER kinds of characters that are for some reason less powerful (for example, not enough play time as the other PC, so therefore not as powerful) and their insecurities and jealousy are surfacing. This is human. I, as a whole, find the rule as is pretty balanced for pretty much everything. Usually their are other factors that cause a percieved inbalance, and this then is only the perception. my 2 cents
Dragonsblood 07-23-05, 06:05 PM	My problem with psionics isn't so much that it may be broken. I think it's just stupid that WotC came up with another magic system, when the one they had already was fine. I don't like its flavor - it should be one or the other, not both.
narukagami 07-23-05, 06:05 PM	Brokeness and munchkinism isn't a problem with the game, its a problem with the players. ^adapted from the Guardians of Order's gamer's manifesto.
Earthcrosser599 07-23-05, 06:46 PM	I'm just wondering if anyone else goes through this. When one of my players gives an overview of what his character does, 9 out of 10 times the rest of the group mutters "broken" all around. It almost doesn't matter what kind of character it is.
Count Arioch the 28th 07-23-05, 06:50 PM	I tend to disregard the people on these boards, and do my own testing. Once I've done my own testing, I make my decisions. Needless to say, I've come to different conclusions. there are very few things I'd call broken in this game. (Getting caster level in the mid hundreds by 20 is broken. Casting empowered maximized awaken on wildshaped druids is broken. And so forth.) I generally only call it broken when it's obvious that the designers never intended that effect to occur. Usually, it's stuff so minor that it's not even an issue to house rule it, you son't find it by accident. Now, there are balance problems post 10, I agree there. But that's different from "broken".
tariff 07-23-05, 07:46 PM	I would agree with a previous poster. I dont think any of it is broken.. i allow my players to use whatever they want (feats, Prestige classes etc) aslong as they come from official WoTC books. So far ive not found anything game breaking at all.. I dont think the classes seem un-balanced etc. A great deal of the perception of this being "broken" or that being "un-balanced" comes from how players play and how Dm's dm in my opinion.. I think dm's/players are becoming to paranoid.
DungeonMaster 07-23-05, 09:14 PM	"Broken" doesn't take time for a DM to squish. Trillion damage hulking hurlers and the writer are casually laughed at and discredited for inability to do simple math. There are more rules in 3.5 than any previous edition so you're definitely going to get more things that break, sometimes spectacularly. What's more insidious is power creep, and sadly from previous editions experience, you can't stop power creep any more than you can stop the wind. Much of what you're decrying as "broken" is really just power creep and there's plenty of that to go around with each wave of new books. The general stinking cloud of discontent you're experiencing is typical of an edition that has run its course and nailed its own coffin.
Edymnion 07-23-05, 09:44 PM	I go to great lengths to dispute it (assuming they're basing it off of their balance issues rather than campaign setting.) I tend to do this regardless of whether or not I want to play with said material.Okay, so let me get this straight. You don't agree with your DM's opinion, so you intentionally go out of your way to make an ass out of yourself and drive the DM up the wall, even though it has nothing to do with you, or anything you want to play? Congratulations, you are a disruptive player, and would not be invited back to my table. Ever. When you are running your own game, you may use or not use whatever material you see fit. But when you agree to play under another DM, you by default agree to use his rules. You don't have to like them, you just have to play with them. You can always try to talk him into relaxing one, or making an exception, but you do it politely, and you realize that if he puts his foot down, its over. No more questions, no means no. It is his (or her) game, and it is up to THEM to keep it in line. Not you. You don't walk into somebody else's house and then rail at them because they put the sofa on the left side of the room instead of in the center, its bad manners, its rude, and it is not something anyone should have to put up with in their own house. Same thing goes for another DM's game. With that kind of attitude, I would be highly surprised if ANY DM would consent to let you be one of their players for more than a session or two. I would honestly rather DM a bunch of min-max uber munchkins that wouldn't know roleplaying if it got up off the table and kicked them in the teeth than somebody who has made it his life's goal to tell me how to run my game. You don't like how somebody runs their game? Fine. Leave. Nobody ever said a Player had any right to play. The DM is the one that is doing 90% of the work at that table. And frankly, there are a lot more players out there than DMs, so its not going to hurt any DM to kick a disruptive player to the curb. There are always more players.
Visceris 07-23-05, 09:45 PM	Can someone just cast a mend spell?
GEEKAZOID 07-23-05, 09:49 PM	If you were around these boards back when 3.0 came out, all you ever read was this sucks and that sucks and blah blah blah........ With heavy emphasis on rangers and bards sucking big dirt. I still think rangers and bards were fine. I thought they ended that with 3.5 but now the kick is fighters and sorcerers suck. And everybody is an expert.
Alutras 07-23-05, 09:53 PM	My problem with psionics isn't so much that it may be broken. I think it's just stupid that WotC came up with another magic system, when the one they had already was fine. I don't like its flavor - it should be one or the other, not both. Why? D&D is a fantasy game. A game of limitless possibilities where you can be what you want and have fun doing it. I think that more options makes the game more interesting. Real life isn't constricted to a certain small number of fields or professions, and D&D is certainly supposed to be more fantastic than real life. The more options there are, the more likely everbody can find something that's flavorful and interesting to them, and can have fun.
Edymnion 07-23-05, 09:58 PM	I think it's just stupid that WotC came up with another magic systemBut WotC didn't come up with it. TSR did. Psionics have been part of the game since first edition. It was expanded in second edition, and perfected in third edition. Saying you think its stupid that WotC came up with psionics is like saying you think its stupid that WotC came up with initiative rolls. Psionics are very well balanced, and integrate in with the rest of third edition very well. You should be THANKING WotC for the great job they did of fixing the system.
GEEKAZOID 07-23-05, 10:11 PM	Ah yes, way in the back of the Player's Handbook where few dared to tread. AD&D psionics. A most confusing mechanic it was.
Edymnion 07-23-05, 10:22 PM	Ah yes, way in the back of the Player's Handbook where few dared to tread. AD&D psionics. A most confusing mechanic it was.Yeah. Essentially anybody with a high enough intelligence could roll a percentile check to see if they had psionic abilities. They then rolled randomly off a table to see which ability they had. Sometimes it was useful, sometimes it was crap, sometimes it boiled down to "Anything you look at explodes". There was no balance, there was no attempt made at having it even be playable, but it was there.
Pfisiar 07-23-05, 10:27 PM	But WotC didn't come up with it. TSR did. Psionics have been part of the game since first edition. It was expanded in second edition, and perfected in third edition. Saying you think its stupid that WotC came up with psionics is like saying you think its stupid that WotC came up with initiative rolls. Psionics are very well balanced, and integrate in with the rest of third edition very well. You should be THANKING WotC for the great job they did of fixing the system. For the most part, I'd agree with everything you said. My experience with psions come from one gaming session and everything seemed perectly all right. I've heard that 2nd ed psionics were incredibly broken, but again, I have no idea what that was about. Basically, I posted to say that I applaud everything that Edymnion had to say about disruptive players. GM's have the right to dictate what is or is not usable in their game. If you don't like it, don't play it. Do not make the game painful for other players.
Vallah 07-23-05, 10:40 PM	IMHO power attack is now totally overpowered. In our group even the players who run warriors could not beleive their eyes when they saw that one, consequently we continue to use the 3.0 rules for this. D&D is all about choices and personal preference -if you don't like something don't use it.
Count Arioch the 28th 07-24-05, 03:50 AM	Just to remind everyone, the OP was not complaining about things being broken, but rather complain that everything that comes out is heralded as being broken.
IceFractal 07-24-05, 04:05 AM	As long as the players are using the same rules and choice exists within those rules, a sufficiently adaptive powergamer can make a powerful (relative to the group) character out of anything. With that the case, why restrict everybody's options in a clearly doomed attempt to stop the "problem" of powergaming? And to get to the root of the problem, why is powergaming a problem? In my experience, the real problem is envy, not powergaming (with a few exceptions). Consider this - D&D has two primary elements: roleplaying, and playing the game system. Some people only enjoy roleplaying, some people only enjoy the mechnical aspects, and some people enjoy both. People who only enjoy one aspect can get bored when people talk about the other aspect, and conciously or unconciously start thinking of it as bad, and thinking that anyone who focuses on it is somehow diminished in their ability to play the "good" aspect. This can both ways - wargamers who complain about roleplayers talking too much and ignoring the rules - or roleplayers who complain about "evil powergamers" being munchkins and ruining the game. We've all probably been guilty of this in some aspect of life, but it's necessary to recognize it as a fiction. Roleplaying and effective mechnical gaming do not draw from a limited pool of points. Some people are good at both and some at neither. You can improve your skills in one aspect without diminishing the other. Another thing that some people seem to regard as a problem is that someone who knows the system better and spends more time building and planning out their character has a stronger character as a result. This isn't a flaw in the design, it is a fundamental element of all games. A chessmaster is better at chess than a novice despite having the exact same pieces. Anyone who said that the game should be "evened out" so that they had the same effective power would probably be laughed at. Now yes, handicaps do exist, but that's a bit different because everyone knows about the handicap, and if one is given then that player is officially stated to be better. Let's take an example: Two players are both making knight characters. Player A doesn't really know the system well. Player B is an expert with it. They are both 1st level human Fighters. Player A picks Toughness because his character is tough, picks Skill Focus (ride) because he is an expert horseman, and picks Improved Unarmed Strike because he wants to ride by people and kick them. He uses a greatsword because it's the most powerful weapon. Player B picks Mounted Combat, Ride-By Attack, and Spirited Charge because his character is an expert mounted combatant, which is the same thing Player A was going for, but Player B has picked feats that synergize better. He also picks a lance, because it's a good weapon for a cavalry charger. Right away, Player B's character is going to be stronger. His abilities synergize better and contribute more to the concept he's going for. Now the wrong reaction, but one that can be a reflex, is to nerf Player B's abilities. Effectively, make it impossible to synergize abilities so that picking semi-randomly makes as powerful a character as picking with great precision. This is, however, a bad move. It will diminish Player B's fun, not help Player A in the long term, and create a cycle of nerfing and frustration that may eventually lead to the collapse of the group. The correct solution is to give Player A some help on creating his character, pointing out which abilities will work well together and support his concept, and which ones will prove useless down the line. Now if a player has advanced knowledge and refuses to share it, they are just being a jerk, and deserve whatever they get. However, that's pretty rare. So in summary, don't punish being good at something!
weasel fierce 07-24-05, 04:24 AM	Game balance is a joke. The notion that something is "broken" is merely a failure to understand that a roleplaying game, as a medium, cannot be perfectly balanced, and indeed, should not. Now, a rules mechanic can be broken, in that it makes the game less fun. But thats a separate thing
Tenzhi 07-24-05, 04:52 AM	If any given rule doesn't "work" for me for whatever reason, then it is "broken." I will either fix it or throw it out, as this is what one generally does with "broken" things. If a player can't cope with this solution then they are "broken" and I will either "fix" them or throw them out.
Earthcrosser599 07-24-05, 05:24 AM	Okay, so let me get this straight. You don't agree with your DM's opinion, so you intentionally go out of your way to make an ass out of yourself and drive the DM up the wall, even though it has nothing to do with you, or anything you want to play? Congratulations, you are a disruptive player, and would not be invited back to my table. Ever. When you are running your own game, you may use or not use whatever material you see fit. But when you agree to play under another DM, you by default agree to use his rules. You don't have to like them, you just have to play with them. You can always try to talk him into relaxing one, or making an exception, but you do it politely, and you realize that if he puts his foot down, its over. No more questions, no means no. It is his (or her) game, and it is up to THEM to keep it in line. Not you. You don't walk into somebody else's house and then rail at them because they put the sofa on the left side of the room instead of in the center, its bad manners, its rude, and it is not something anyone should have to put up with in their own house. Same thing goes for another DM's game. With that kind of attitude, I would be highly surprised if ANY DM would consent to let you be one of their players for more than a session or two. I would honestly rather DM a bunch of min-max uber munchkins that wouldn't know roleplaying if it got up off the table and kicked them in the teeth than somebody who has made it his life's goal to tell me how to run my game. You don't like how somebody runs their game? Fine. Leave. Nobody ever said a Player had any right to play. The DM is the one that is doing 90% of the work at that table. And frankly, there are a lot more players out there than DMs, so its not going to hurt any DM to kick a disruptive player to the curb. There are always more players. I think you misinterpret what I mean by "dispute." Breathe, dude. If you're angry at someone about doing something that essay you just wrote, I can understand that but don't take it out on me and that stuff has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
Earthcrosser599 07-24-05, 05:29 AM	As long as the players are using the same rules and choice exists within those rules, a sufficiently adaptive powergamer can make a powerful (relative to the group) character out of anything. With that the case, why restrict everybody's options in a clearly doomed attempt to stop the "problem" of powergaming? And to get to the root of the problem, why is powergaming a problem? In my experience, the real problem is envy, not powergaming (with a few exceptions). Consider this - D&D has two primary elements: roleplaying, and playing the game system. Some people only enjoy roleplaying, some people only enjoy the mechnical aspects, and some people enjoy both. People who only enjoy one aspect can get bored when people talk about the other aspect, and conciously or unconciously start thinking of it as bad, and thinking that anyone who focuses on it is somehow diminished in their ability to play the "good" aspect. This can both ways - wargamers who complain about roleplayers talking too much and ignoring the rules - or roleplayers who complain about "evil powergamers" being munchkins and ruining the game. We've all probably been guilty of this in some aspect of life, but it's necessary to recognize it as a fiction. Roleplaying and effective mechnical gaming do not draw from a limited pool of points. Some people are good at both and some at neither. You can improve your skills in one aspect without diminishing the other. Another thing that some people seem to regard as a problem is that someone who knows the system better and spends more time building and planning out their character has a stronger character as a result. This isn't a flaw in the design, it is a fundamental element of all games. A chessmaster is better at chess than a novice despite having the exact same pieces. Anyone who said that the game should be "evened out" so that they had the same effective power would probably be laughed at. Now yes, handicaps do exist, but that's a bit different because everyone knows about the handicap, and if one is given then that player is officially stated to be better. Let's take an example: Two players are both making knight characters. Player A doesn't really know the system well. Player B is an expert with it. They are both 1st level human Fighters. Player A picks Toughness because his character is tough, picks Skill Focus (ride) because he is an expert horseman, and picks Improved Unarmed Strike because he wants to ride by people and kick them. He uses a greatsword because it's the most powerful weapon. Player B picks Mounted Combat, Ride-By Attack, and Spirited Charge because his character is an expert mounted combatant, which is the same thing Player A was going for, but Player B has picked feats that synergize better. He also picks a lance, because it's a good weapon for a cavalry charger. Right away, Player B's character is going to be stronger. His abilities synergize better and contribute more to the concept he's going for. Now the wrong reaction, but one that can be a reflex, is to nerf Player B's abilities. Effectively, make it impossible to synergize abilities so that picking semi-randomly makes as powerful a character as picking with great precision. This is, however, a bad move. It will diminish Player B's fun, not help Player A in the long term, and create a cycle of nerfing and frustration that may eventually lead to the collapse of the group. The correct solution is to give Player A some help on creating his character, pointing out which abilities will work well together and support his concept, and which ones will prove useless down the line. Now if a player has advanced knowledge and refuses to share it, they are just being a jerk, and deserve whatever they get. However, that's pretty rare. So in summary, don't punish being good at something! I can honestly say I've never looked at it quite like that. That's very insightful and something I'll look at the next time our group gests together.
EvilDuck 07-24-05, 02:58 PM	You don't walk into somebody else's house and then rail at them because they put the sofa on the left side of the room instead of in the center, its bad manners, its rude, and it is not something anyone should have to put up with in their own house. Same thing goes for another DM's game. You're absolutely right. That guy'ssofa would be much better against the back wall than where it is right now! I think the problemwith the system is people who whine. People who whine should be smacked and be told to shut up. A. "The fighter's underpowered!" *smack* "With the Complete Warrior and Miniature's Handbook, there's a bunch of long feat chains that only the fighter can take advantage of, making him excellent at battlefield control. Shut up." B. "The sorcerer's underpowered!" *smack* "If you don't like the sorcerer, use the psion. And shut up." C. "Psionics is overpowered!" *smack* "If you bothered to read the rules, you'd see that psionics is quite balanced, moreso than arcane or divine casting, so shut up." D. "Druids are overpowered!" *smack* "Shut up, man, I love druids!"
Yanagita Kunio 07-24-05, 03:32 PM	It isn't that D&D is broken so much as there's only so much "balancing" one can do to make all of the rules elegant, comprehensible, and integrated, while keeping them simple--especially when there is a continual expansion of the product line and the addition of new bells and whistles. Second, just as in civil and criminal law, even a well-made system or rules can be exploited with sufficient knowledge. While the Knight A, Knight B comparison is valid, there's only so much that WotC can do to repair it by altering the whole game.
anarco_rata 07-24-05, 03:52 PM	people that whine about "broken" are usually just angry that their fellow players came with a very good combo or strategy or whatever before them. When they say "broken" i hear: "hey, that makes you character more powerfull than mine, and i dont like that because im a whinny f*** " people: sometimes, somebody's character will be better than yours. DEAL WITH IT. I actually had a player that said that spectral hand was broken because a fellow player used vampiric touch with it and killed the (monster name i dont remember) with it... The problem with balance in most WOtC books are just in the mind of the players... it's nobodys fault that you didn't though your character strategy as long as the other player, but yours. If you don't want your typicall Warrior lvl 10 with a long sword that you build in a minute to be overpowered by a character that took three days of building and choosing feats, then you are just dumb... remember: is not broken, you're just too stupid too realize the potenciall in the other things ;) (BTW this post is not meant to offend anybody!) edit: BTW: everytime you say psionics is broken, god kills a kitten. with his mind :coolcthul
caeruleus 07-24-05, 04:30 PM	Two points: 1 - IceFractal not only has a cool name, but makes excellent points. 2 - I think the problem comes (as many problems in the world do) from people taking something subjective (they don't have as much fun with the game as they'd like) and make it out to be objective (the game itself is flawed).
Vaelan 07-24-05, 07:28 PM	stuff I'm going to be referring to this all over the place, if you don't mind. There are a lot of people on these boards that really need to hear this.
BeyondFated 07-24-05, 11:12 PM	1 - IceFractal not only has a cool name, but makes excellent points. And has a cool avatar, but that is neither here, not there. Regardless, I find that whenever someone says that something is broken, it's usually because they don't understand it. Whenever I try to bring in 3rd party material, I always go to my DM a day or two before the session. I usually understand the material in question, but go over most of it with my DM, in depth. We discuss what would be good, and bad. We both makes sure we understand the subject matter, and he makes a final say, yay or nay. And we have never had a problem. Strange how something as a civil conversation has kept our games nigh argument free for years. Except between players... :D He just won't understand you can't grapple the flippin golem and win!
Earthcrosser599 07-25-05, 01:22 AM	Regardless, I find that whenever someone says that something is broken, it's usually because they don't understand it. Whenever I try to bring in 3rd party material, I always go to my DM a day or two before the session. I usually understand the material in question, but go over most of it with my DM, in depth. We discuss what would be good, and bad. We both makes sure we understand the subject matter, and he makes a final say, yay or nay. That is probably the biggest reason I see people disallowing material in their games. I remember when I thought Warlocks were overpowered. It was based off of what someone told me about Eldritch Blast and I'd never even seen the class. Once I sat down and playtested the Warlock for myself, using just my own experiences and observations, things began to fall into place. I later expanded that into psionics, Exalted Deeds, ect and now all the other DMs around here think I'm insane for allowing that stuff in my game. Funny thing about it is all the players are playing "broken" classes and using "broken" feats, and they're having a blast. Do other people see this sort of secondhand biased towards certain game aspects? From what I see it's fairly common around here but most of the gaming community around here learned from each other and have played with each other, and there's a sort of mob mentality among the players.
weasel fierce 07-25-05, 01:25 AM	Some things just wont fit in some games, adventures or campaigns. If you play an investigative, noble intrigue sort of adventure, playing a beholder is not going to be practical.
Edymnion 07-25-05, 02:10 AM	I think you misinterpret what I mean by "dispute."I go to great lengths to dispute it (assuming they're basing it off of their balance issues rather than campaign setting.) I tend to do this regardless of whether or not I want to play with said material.No, I think I got it just about right. To dispute, to argue or to debate. You said you go out of your way to dispute the DM's ruling, not because it affects you or your character in any way, but just because you think you know how the rules should be handled in a game better than your DM. If the DM says they aren't going to allow something because they think its overpowered, and you're arguing about it just for that reason, its being disruptive. I mean, I can spell out how to take over the world at level 1 with a first level spell. And by the RAW, no DM can stop it. I can use a second level spell to warp the Deck of Many Things into giving me nothing but good cards, and by the RAW, the DM cannot stop me. With a 9th level spell, I can get infinite wishes and outfit entire armies with greater artifacts, and make them all immortal at the same time. And by the RAW, the DM cannot stop me. Hypnosis, Augury, and Astral Projection. All core spells. And it only gets worse the more books you add. The game rules are not perfect. It is the duty of the DM to modify or not use anything they think would disrupt their game.
IceFractal 07-25-05, 02:33 AM	Vaelan - Glad you find it useful, feel free to spread the word. :D And hey, this thread is great - everybody's complimenting my name, avatar, posts ... :ayyyy!: Thanks, and I really shouldn't let it go to my head. ;)
Earthcrosser599 07-25-05, 03:10 AM	No, I think I got it just about right. To dispute, to argue or to debate. You said you go out of your way to dispute the DM's ruling, not because it affects you or your character in any way, but just because you think you know how the rules should be handled in a game better than your DM. If the DM says they aren't going to allow something because they think its overpowered, and you're arguing about it just for that reason, its being disruptive. Mmmmkay...about a month ago I was invited to a campaign that's starting and right off the bat the DM says, "No clerics." I ask him why not, and he says they're broken. I ask him why he thinks they are broken. He says something about how he read that a cleric is the most broken class in the players handbook and he doesn't want the game to get out of hand. I ask him if he's ever played one himself. He says no and he doesn't want to because he's not a power gamer. I tell him that he should try it sometime rather than just go off on what other people say. I had no intention of playing a cleric, but it seemed odd to me. I fail to see how this makes me the antichrist of D&D. I mean, I can spell out how to take over the world at level 1 with a first level spell. And by the RAW, no DM can stop it. I can use a second level spell to warp the Deck of Many Things into giving me nothing but good cards, and by the RAW, the DM cannot stop me. With a 9th level spell, I can get infinite wishes and outfit entire armies with greater artifacts, and make them all immortal at the same time. And by the RAW, the DM cannot stop me. Hypnosis, Augury, and Astral Projection. All core spells. And it only gets worse the more books you add. Okay...I'm getting confused. You're telling me that I'm a disruptive player who needs to respect the DM's calls and not be an *******, and now you're telling me that you can do stuff that by the rules a DM can't dispute? :confused:
Earthcrosser599 07-25-05, 03:13 AM	Vaelan - Glad you find it useful, feel free to spread the word. :D And hey, this thread is great - everybody's complimenting my name, avatar, posts ... :ayyyy!: Thanks, and I really shouldn't let it go to my head. ;) lol At the risk of sounding repetative, that was some really good advice that added alot to this thread. Any more sage wisdom?
BladeDrinker 07-25-05, 04:09 AM	While I wholeheartedly agree that too many people are using the word "broken" when they mean "powerful", I disagree with a few point raised above. Most of the complaints I hear about this sort of 'broken' characters as from people playing OTHER kinds of characters that are for some reason less powerful (for example, not enough play time as the other PC, so therefore not as powerful) and their insecurities and jealousy are surfacing. This is human. I, as a whole, find the rule as is pretty balanced for pretty much everything. I have to disagree with this. While it is true that people use the term "broken" far too often, it isn't fair to say that everyone who says that anything is broken is just whining. As good as WotC is, it's still run by people, and people make mistakes. The Hulking Hurler is just that- a mistake. It is quite clearly broken, and thus not suitable for play without some significant restrictions. And to get to the root of the problem, why is powergaming a problem? In my experience, the real problem is envy, not powergaming (with a few exceptions). Consider this - D&D has two primary elements: roleplaying, and playing the game system. Some people only enjoy roleplaying, some people only enjoy the mechnical aspects, and some people enjoy both. People who only enjoy one aspect can get bored when people talk about the other aspect, and conciously or unconciously start thinking of it as bad, and thinking that anyone who focuses on it is somehow diminished in their ability to play the "good" aspect. While I agree with most of your post, I disagree that roleplayers and rollplayers (sorry for the cliche) work well in the same party. I'll give you another example. Player 1 creates an incredibly powerful frenzied berserker. Player 2 wants to play a gnome rogue/cleric of Garl Glittergold, picks up a mini on eBay and paints it that week. In the 1st session of play, the frenzied berserker kills the cleric of Garl Glittergold after the FB is damaged by a kobold and then goes berserk and kills the rest of the party. Player 1 then creates a new character- a Red Wizard with godly save DC's for its spells. The DM can't seem to find anything in the MM that can survive an encounter with the Red Wizard. Player 2 picks up another mini on eBay and paints it, this time a wizard/sorcerer relative of the Symbul from Aglarond. Result: Player 2's character is useless in combat except for limited buffing. Player 2's character is soon killed. I have DMed different peeps with more than my share of percieved broken characters and I find that no matter what, I can still challenge the PCs. Even if the PCs are indestructible and I know the mobs I am throwing them up against won't kill them, the PCs DON'T know that until the combat is a few rounds then..and then, it is almost over anyway. The problem is more with one PC being broken/abusive and the others weak. A party of min/maxed characters works fine, and a party of low powered characters works well too. But having two characters on opposite ends of the power spectrum is a nightmare for a DM. (Unless s/he enjoys killing off lots of characters.)
Earthcrosser599 07-25-05, 04:30 AM	While I agree with most of your post, I disagree that roleplayers and rollplayers (sorry for the cliche) work well in the same party. I'll give you another example. Player 1 creates an incredibly powerful frenzied berserker. Player 2 wants to play a gnome rogue/cleric of Garl Glittergold, picks up a mini on eBay and paints it that week. In the 1st session of play, the frenzied berserker kills the cleric of Garl Glittergold after the FB is damaged by a kobold and then goes berserk and kills the rest of the party. Player 1 then creates a new character- a Red Wizard with godly save DC's for its spells. The DM can't seem to find anything in the MM that can survive an encounter with the Red Wizard. Player 2 picks up another mini on eBay and paints it, this time a wizard/sorcerer relative of the Symbul from Aglarond. Result: Player 2's character is useless in combat except for limited buffing. Player 2's character is soon killed. I agree with this to a point; I think a frenzied berzerker is a bad example on why power characters will nerf flavor characters because at times, you're not just overshadowing allies; you're threatening to kill them. Characters of really high power level mixed in with "normal" characters sometimes make it difficult for me as a DM to combat without making the encounters too hard for the lower power characters. You could address this by giving the party an enemy who is made to fight specific power characters or is well suited to fighting them...off the top of my head I can't think of something that works extremely well against a FB and just okay against other characters, but given time I like to think I could come up with something. The other thing to do is let the power guy shine. He's done his homework so he should enjoy it. Just because some scout dervish is really really good at fighting large groups of weak enemies doesn't necessarily mean I'd take those away from him. If the other players are making flavor guys they might not mind not having the spotlight, and the people learning to be power gamers might pick up a thing or two.
EvilDuck 07-25-05, 04:48 AM	I have to disagree with this. While it is true that people use the term "broken" far too often, it isn't fair to say that everyone who says that anything is broken is just whining. As good as WotC is, it's still run by people, and people make mistakes. The Hulking Hurler is just that- a mistake. It is quite clearly broken, and thus not suitable for play without some significant restrictions. The Hulking Hurler is fine. The rules on improvised weapon damage are what's skewed. While I agree with most of your post, I disagree that roleplayers and rollplayers (sorry for the cliche) work well in the same party. I'll give you another example. Player 1 creates an incredibly powerful frenzied berserker. Player 2 wants to play a gnome rogue/cleric of Garl Glittergold, picks up a mini on eBay and paints it that week. In the 1st session of play, the frenzied berserker kills the cleric of Garl Glittergold after the FB is damaged by a kobold and then goes berserk and kills the rest of the party. Player 1 then creates a new character- a Red Wizard with godly save DC's for its spells. The DM can't seem to find anything in the MM that can survive an encounter with the Red Wizard. Player 2 picks up another mini on eBay and paints it, this time a wizard/sorcerer relative of the Symbul from Aglarond. Result: Player 2's character is useless in combat except for limited buffing. Player 2's character is soon killed. Player 1 should have bumped up his will save with that Berserker, and Player 2 needs to stop playing sucky characters.
nyysjan 07-25-05, 05:03 AM	anythings broken if you brake it
Zinegata 07-25-05, 06:55 AM	As long as the players are using the same rules and choice exists within those rules, a sufficiently adaptive powergamer can make a powerful (relative to the group) character out of anything. With that the case, why restrict everybody's options in a clearly doomed attempt to stop the "problem" of powergaming? And to get to the root of the problem, why is powergaming a problem? In my experience, the real problem is envy, not powergaming (with a few exceptions). Consider this - D&D has two primary elements: roleplaying, and playing the game system. Some people only enjoy roleplaying, some people only enjoy the mechnical aspects, and some people enjoy both. People who only enjoy one aspect can get bored when people talk about the other aspect, and conciously or unconciously start thinking of it as bad, and thinking that anyone who focuses on it is somehow diminished in their ability to play the "good" aspect. This can both ways - wargamers who complain about roleplayers talking too much and ignoring the rules - or roleplayers who complain about "evil powergamers" being munchkins and ruining the game. We've all probably been guilty of this in some aspect of life, but it's necessary to recognize it as a fiction. Roleplaying and effective mechnical gaming do not draw from a limited pool of points. Some people are good at both and some at neither. You can improve your skills in one aspect without diminishing the other. Another thing that some people seem to regard as a problem is that someone who knows the system better and spends more time building and planning out their character has a stronger character as a result. This isn't a flaw in the design, it is a fundamental element of all games. A chessmaster is better at chess than a novice despite having the exact same pieces. Anyone who said that the game should be "evened out" so that they had the same effective power would probably be laughed at. Now yes, handicaps do exist, but that's a bit different because everyone knows about the handicap, and if one is given then that player is officially stated to be better. Let's take an example: Two players are both making knight characters. Player A doesn't really know the system well. Player B is an expert with it. They are both 1st level human Fighters. Player A picks Toughness because his character is tough, picks Skill Focus (ride) because he is an expert horseman, and picks Improved Unarmed Strike because he wants to ride by people and kick them. He uses a greatsword because it's the most powerful weapon. Player B picks Mounted Combat, Ride-By Attack, and Spirited Charge because his character is an expert mounted combatant, which is the same thing Player A was going for, but Player B has picked feats that synergize better. He also picks a lance, because it's a good weapon for a cavalry charger. Right away, Player B's character is going to be stronger. His abilities synergize better and contribute more to the concept he's going for. Now the wrong reaction, but one that can be a reflex, is to nerf Player B's abilities. Effectively, make it impossible to synergize abilities so that picking semi-randomly makes as powerful a character as picking with great precision. This is, however, a bad move. It will diminish Player B's fun, not help Player A in the long term, and create a cycle of nerfing and frustration that may eventually lead to the collapse of the group. The correct solution is to give Player A some help on creating his character, pointing out which abilities will work well together and support his concept, and which ones will prove useless down the line. Now if a player has advanced knowledge and refuses to share it, they are just being a jerk, and deserve whatever they get. However, that's pretty rare. So in summary, don't punish being good at something! Most excellent post. Couldn't have said it better myself. One thing that must be noted though is that sometimes (perhaps often), even the envy of other players isn't the problem. DMs also tend to abuse their powers, especially when they are unable to make effective challenges of their own utilizing the existing mechanics. I think it's because certain DMs (mostly "role" players) just don't like a wrench being thrown into their story, so they change or add mechanics midstream. If an NPC needs to live or die, they change the game's reality to make it so (and sometimes, they accuse the player of being a munchkin to make it seem it's not their fault). I don't know if they do this consciously or unconsciously, but seeing this happen honestly makes me want to flip through the D&D Classified Ads. A sub-type of this kind of behaviour are DMs who moan about how his/her "cool" characters aren't as effective as he/she imagined them to be. This is mostly because they choose to employ mechanics that fit the "role" of the character, but aren't actually effective once the "rolling" starts. Because the DM lacks mastery of the mechanics, he/she blames the players for being overpowered. Finally, another important thing to add about "broken" rules is that they are always balanced anyway because of one important fact: Any rule that applies to the players can also be exploited by the DM. I've seen one rather vocal anti 3.0 player (who still plays 1st or 2nd Ed <_<) rant on and on about how unbalanced 3.0 is without the system shock rolls. However, he forgot the fact that while players no longer have to worry about system shock rolls, neither do their enemies. Thus, while a party is now Hasted more often, it's also more common to see Hasted enemies as well. I don't think there is a better equalizer than that.
weasel fierce 07-25-05, 11:22 AM	Player 1 should have bumped up his will save with that Berserker, and Player 2 needs to stop playing sucky characters. Why shouldnt he be able to play a character he thinks is fun and interesting ? Its a roleplaying game, not everquest
BladeDrinker 07-25-05, 11:54 AM	Player 2 needs to stop playing sucky characters. But that's exactly my point. To function in a party with an overpowered PC, the other PC's need to also make their characters overpowered. Either you restrict Player 1's ability to powergame (which s/he won't like) or you restrict Player 2's ability to play story based characters and force them to powergame too (which s/he won't like.) I'm not saying powergaming or story/character based roleplaying are bad, just that they don't always work together. You could address this by giving the party an enemy who is made to fight specific power characters or is well suited to fighting them...off the top of my head I can't think of something that works extremely well against a FB and just okay against other characters, but given time I like to think I could come up with something. The problem is that DnD parties function on a bell curve. When you have one person wrecking the curve (either way too powerful or way underpowered,) the DM is forced to put the weaker characters in tremendous danger by using more powerful monsters or choose to protect them by picking weaker monsters. To compensate for Player 1's uber-powerful character, the DM brings in more powerful monsters to challenge the characters. These monsters may be a good match for Player 1's character, but they will easily dispatch Player 2's character. Or the DM can try to bring in weak creatures to protect Player 2's character, while Player 1 no longer finds the game challenging. Yes, you can pick monsters that target one character. An enchanter would be a good match for a Frenzied Berserker. But you can't expect your whole adventure to be against enchanters. Most DM's simply don't have the time to tailor every monster the party faces to only target a single character in the group.
Edymnion 07-25-05, 02:37 PM	Okay...I'm getting confused. You're telling me that I'm a disruptive player who needs to respect the DM's calls and not be an *******, and now you're telling me that you can do stuff that by the rules a DM can't dispute? :confused:To illustrate the point that any good DM is going to have to houserule, change, and outright dissallow some things in order to keep the game moving smoothly. As for your example, thats not banning something for power reasons, thats a DM that doesn't know what he's talking about. There are many things in this game that actually are broken, at least under the right situations and/or feat/class combinations. For example, I will forever be of the opinion that either the Sorcerer or the Favored Soul is absolutely broken, either grossly under or over powered. I don't make that call based on blind ignorance of "well somebody over here said it was", but on my own experience with the classes, and experience with the game overall. Or the Hulking Hurler. You are giving the appearance that you go out of your way to argue with your DM's decisions just on general principle, and it doesn't matter why the DM banned it in the first place. You should realize that most DMs have very good reasons why they don't allow things into their campaign, and its your job as a player to respect their judgement in the matter. Just like its the job of the DM to make the game enjoyable for the players. Its one thing if banned material would affect your ability to enjoy your character, then you're well within your rights to discuss it with the DM. But going out of your way to "dispute" material that you have no intention of using is just making you an pain in your DM's neck.
Earthcrosser599 07-25-05, 03:29 PM	As for your example, thats not banning something for power reasons, thats a DM that doesn't know what he's talking about. Welcome to my gaming world, son. You've finally hit the reason on why I started this thread. You are giving the appearance that you go out of your way to argue with your DM's decisions just on general principle, and it doesn't matter why the DM banned it in the first place. Wait, so you never ask questions? If you started up a game and the DM said, "You will all play fighters," you wouldn't ask him if there's a reason for that? Now this has become a matter of personal opinion, because I know I'd be curious and I'd probably ask why. I agree that the first thing that usually comes to mind when a DM bans something is "Why?" I have no problem asking and the DMs I play with have no problems giving me their reasoning. 99% of the time it's all based on their secondhand reports about something being overpowered before they even give it a chance. Like the cleric thing. Because that's most often the case, I have no reservations about asking them how well they know what they're talking about. You should realize that most DMs have very good reasons why they don't allow things into their campaign, and its your job as a player to respect their judgement in the matter. Just like its the job of the DM to make the game enjoyable for the players. Its one thing if banned material would affect your ability to enjoy your character, then you're well within your rights to discuss it with the DM. But going out of your way to "dispute" material that you have no intention of using is just making you an pain in your DM's neck. When that DM said no clerics, I had no intention of playing a cleric. I wanted to know why because it seemed odd to me. My playgroup is civilized enough that asking a question and discussing something isn't going to get someone upset. Maybe you're right, we should all have DMs who ban the cleric class because it's too strong. After all, anyone who tries to argue it is being disrespectful to the DM, and we can't have that. Honestly, I'd guess you've had negative experiences with this, and I'm sorry about that. Regardless, people like IceFractal, Zinegata, BeyondFated, and a bunch of other people are contributing useful information which I greatly appreciate. You seem to have nothing to say other than how I am the end all be all of bad gamers and everything I do is an affront to D&D etiquette. If that's what you want to think, I don't mind. But it has nothing to do with this thread so I'd appreciate it if you either moved it to PMs or started your own thread.
Koga:The ninja trick 07-25-05, 05:06 PM	The Koga thinks the more you hear about it, the worse it is.. With the exseption of psionics which is mostly do to fear. You can't knock it till you've tried it.. The Koga has seen warlocks and warmages in games, and though not as bad as clerics or druids, he has to wonder what the designers were thinking when they made them.. On that note: Clerics and druids are the worse of the worst. And everyone would probably be alot happier if they ripped off those two class'es face with thier teeth and peed on what was left.. And some rules of thumb would quickly elude the problems of some "weak" classes.. #1: Fighters can take any feat as a bonus feat from the [General] list.. #2: Paladins and Rangers perhaps get extra class skills or something else, but not "spells". They were intended to be melee classes weren't they? The Koga's problem with D&D is how with magick, everybody and thier mother can cast it. And yet they act like it's soooo great! Also The Koga would ban alot of those awful spells that make everything else seem worthless. A party might actually have to PLAN what they're going to do in combat without a cop-out like magick missle or scorching ray to save them. And even the highest level adventurer will still have to use common sense, as wish and miracle or even ressurection wouldn't be around to make everything all better. It's these sortof spells that spoil the players and make them fools in and out of game.. Psionics The Koga can honostly say, does not posess such atrocious power counterparts to those spells.. However, the psionic has but ONE overpowerd class, and that is the erudite. Which was released before the XPH so it doesn't count.. And the wilder/soulknife are underpowerd. But on an axis, The Koga would rather see underpowerd "dungeoneering" games like Legend of Zelda, rather then overpowerd "hackNslash" games like Final Fantasy..
Earthcrosser599 07-25-05, 05:45 PM	And the wilder/soulknife are underpowerd. But on an axis, The Koga would rather see underpowerd "dungeoneering" games like Legend of Zelda, rather then overpowerd "hackNslash" games like Final Fantasy.. Agreed.
TiggerLilly 07-25-05, 05:46 PM	I have played dnd since i was 7 and i am now 15, no big right? well to me it is. Cuase i have been in some kick butt games and i have been in some sucky games. Heres the thing, The only way any of thopse are ever broken is if you want them to be. No matter what happens no game is broken unless you percieve it to be because there will always be that some one who thinks that that game is the most awsoem thing on earth. Just somethin i had to say.... ^^ so yeah... :ayyyy!: :twocents: :b:
IceFractal 07-25-05, 05:49 PM	First, to cover the things that draw the most complaints. The Hulking Hurler, H.I.V.E, Nanobots, and the like all have one minor flaw that allows them to become ridiculous - no cap on one of their abilities. If a reasonable cap is added, they become perfectly reasonable. The Frenzied Berserker is problematic, but not because it's overpowered. The real problem is that it's very party-unfriendly. You'd get the same problems with a Fire Elemental Sorcerer that insisted on casting Fireball centered on the party. Frenzied Berserkers only work in a party that takes precautions against them. For instance, giving everyone else in the group Rings of Flight and not giving the FB any ranged weapons can be a good defense. In most cases where one party member is stronger than another, it doesn't cause many problem, as they fill different roles. The main problem is when they both fill the same role and one makes the other redundant. However, that can be fixed without too much hassle. Check the following: 1) Are the characters really the same, or do they have some different abilities? If the powered-up Wizard is so focussed on damage dealing, he will probably have less utility spells - thus challenges that require those will give the less powerful one a chance to shine. Also, if they're focussed on support rather than direct-effect, they'll be a lot more useful against a golem. 2) Is the less powerful Wizard less powerful because the player purposely chose to be that way or because they weren't aware of the best way to use their options? If they weren't going for combat power, then it's not really a problem that they don't have it - just be sure to put in some non-combat encounters and challenges. If they did want to be powerful in combat, then informing them of their options for doing so and letting them make changes to implement those could solve the problem right there. 3) Is the powered-up Wizard a "nova" type? I've seen a lot of characters claimed as broken because they could do huge amounts of damage, but they could only do it once a day. If that's the case, simply throw a larger number of encounters in and things should even out. I also find that pretty much any character can be challenged by the right foes, without TPKing the rest of the group. Melee monster? Illusionist, Enchanter, flying enemy, or incorporeal creatures all pose a threat. Blaster type? Lots of spread out foes can deplete their spells, as can golems, counterspellers, or assassin types. Now of course, it will be strange if every encounter is tailored like this, so here's the solution - don't worry about it. If the power character smashes through some of the encounters, that's fine, it's what they're going for, and they should get to do it some of the time. Just go for a mix of standard encounters, targetted encounters, and non-combat situations. Another thing that can put the power characters on the same footing is an encounter where nobody has the necessary skills and the whole group has to muddle along. Stick them underwater trying to reach the surface through a maze of seaweed and the Frenzied Berserker/Hulking Hurler has no advantage over the Expert/Bard. But whatever you do, don't go so far that the power character never has a chance to use their skills. They worked to get those skills and they should be able to use them. And besides, unless the players are battling against and competing with each other, there isn't much of a balance problem. Overall, if you want a character who's powerful in combat, you're going to need to know the rules well. If you just want to roleplay without thinking about them, then that's fine, as long as you don't expect to dominate combat while doing it.
Earthcrosser599 07-25-05, 05:56 PM	I have played dnd since i was 7 and i am now 15, no big right? well to me it is. Cuase i have been in some kick butt games and i have been in some sucky games. Heres the thing, The only way any of thopse are ever broken is if you want them to be. No matter what happens no game is broken unless you percieve it to be because there will always be that some one who thinks that that game is the most awsoem thing on earth. Just somethin i had to say.... ^^ so yeah... :ayyyy!: :twocents: :b: Wow, don't get me wrong, I still love D&D. I'm just having a thing around here where everyone calls everything broken and being a little closeminded towards certain things. I think it's going to boil down to me encouraging people to play things they consider overpowered so that they can make a personal opinion on things rather than just go off of what other people say.
Count Arioch the 28th 07-25-05, 06:39 PM	But on an axis, The Koga would rather see underpowerd "dungeoneering" games like Legend of Zelda, rather then overpowerd "hackNslash" games like Final Fantasy.. You see, my group prefers neither. They prefer social interaction and plot exploration. (Although a good dungeon crawl followed by a ripping good fight is pretty fun if not overdone.)
Earthcrosser599 07-25-05, 06:53 PM	I wish my folks were like that. Half an hour into the session I usually hear a chorus of, "I've only killed 10 things...hurry up and start a fight!"
Chade Fallstar 07-25-05, 07:07 PM	First off, IceFractal has been making many valid points. This is the third edition people, I have been playing since 1st. The game is just as fun now as it was then. One point I disagree with IceFractal about is the caps thing. In the 2nd edition DMs Guide, it talked about a great way of not having caps- making every desired point above the 'cap' cost 10 times as much. Creating these plateau points is better than a solid cap, as now the character can still do what they desire if they want to spend the time doing it. On 'power gamers': If you consider people designing a character to do a specific purpose, whether being able to blast anything in their path or hide from the shadows themselves to be 'broken', you (as a DM) probably don't have the experience to deal with the problem or you (as the character) need to talk to the DM about your concerns. Using Earthcrosser599's example: When I played Baulder's Gate, I made a NE dwarven Cleric/Fighter. I never allowed another character to join my party, and yes, I beat the game. This doesn't mean clerics are broken, just that I can build a good cleric. Some characters are easier than others to build for certain encounters, so they get called broken. Parties can be made with characters from different ends of the spectrum, and the encounters can be fun for all. Creating unique critters is one way of dealing with the problem (My DM created a group of guys that almost killed the party- they each had a weakness that almost killed them, but it took too long for the party to figure it out. While two melees were bashing on the guy vulnerable to steel, the guy vulnerable to wood was kicking the **** out of the Paladin.). Another great way of creating hard challenges was presented in the SpellJammer boxed set. Use monsters that have the attributes of one monster, but the appearance of a different one. Example: Swap a troll's stats into a Bugbear. Suddenly, the familiar becomes unknown, and every encounter becomes a challenge. The pixie swapped with an ogre mage was one of my favorite fights. The experienced player's encyclopedic knowledge of monsters and their weaknesses becomes as frantic as the newest character trying to figure out what is happening and why the old standards aren't working.
EvilDuck 07-26-05, 12:38 AM	weasel fierce: He can. However, he should also take into account that character's survivability. BladeDrinker: Player 2's problems go beyond being outdone by Player 1. Player 2 clearly doesn't understand the basics of character building. The cleric/rogue can work as a shadowbane stalker, but a sorcerer/wizard is a plain old mistake. I can understand wanting to play interesting characters, but you can't just disregard the mechanics. Player 2 can't cruch worth jack-diddly.
weasel fierce 07-26-05, 02:56 AM	You know, its possible that roleplaying is not nescesarily about having the most powerfull build, so you can kill more stuff.
Gedrin 07-26-05, 04:25 AM	While none of the things the original poster listed were on my "reasons why I need a different system" list, I did find that using D&D required me to step in quite a bit to keep things from getting crazy. There's some painfully obvious things in the magic rules that just scream for help.
EvilDuck 07-26-05, 05:06 AM	You know, its possible that roleplaying is not nescesarily about having the most powerfull build, so you can kill more stuff. There's a difference between making a less-than-optimal character for RP purposes and making a gimped and useless character for RP purposes. Player 2 is guilty of the latter. And who says you can't have a powerful build, then turn right around and roleplay?
Count Arioch the 28th 07-26-05, 05:44 AM	I wish my folks were like that. Half an hour into the session I usually hear a chorus of, "I've only killed 10 things...hurry up and start a fight!" My players don't consider it a fight unless at least three of them has been severely injured. they don't like lots of small fights, they like big, challenging fights.
babysamurai 07-26-05, 09:05 AM	Broken is a horrible buzz-word that came to fruition in the early nineties, when everyone was playing Magic: the Garthering. Wah, wah, the Juzam Djinn should cost more than two black and two colourless, I'm sick of my friends Balance deck etc. Ever since then we've had the unfortunate trend of anybody that disagrees/thinks it should work differently; calling the said rule/ability-whatever broken. The only thing in D&D that can be considered broken, is the DM/players.
EvilDuck 07-26-05, 10:19 AM	The only thing in D&D that can be considered broken, is the DM/players. And the Cheater of Mystra.
babysamurai 07-26-05, 11:06 AM	And the Cheater of Mystra. What is this Cheater of Mystra you speak of?
Nurgan_the_drunked 07-26-05, 11:19 AM	And the Cheater of Mystra. Nah, this prestige class is only broken with broken players and a broken DM. Otherwise it sits, silently, in a book, and leaves your game alone.
sfubear 07-26-05, 11:38 AM	I think what it comes down to is when people say broken, it isn't that it is to overly powerful or unstoppable, it is just that the DM doesn't know how to handle it, and lets it all get out of hand. If the DM is a good DM and the players are good players then you really don't encounter a lot of problems, you come acros alot of problem at least all of the times I have encountered them when players are noobs that understand that machanics but not the flavor of D&D and they get in the bad habit of min/maxing, instead of making a character around the feel and flavor of what they want, they bust out amazing combos that lead to near indestructable characters and fudge the flavor of the character. A lot of problems also come from DMs that don't know the rules well enough and are not sure on how to counter certain situations they come across I say to the DMs learn the rules and learn the weaknesses of said strong things...use them and I say to the players stop being a tool
Ut-Napishtim 07-26-05, 01:24 PM	Nah, this prestige class is only broken with broken players and a broken DM. Otherwise it sits, silently, in a book, and leaves your game alone. But what qualifies as broken players or a broken DM? The OP already said he likes to argue with his DM on stuff he disagrees with even if it doesn't affect his character. Are you saying that if they interpret the class properly and don't stack it with other stuff it's not broken? Is a broken DM one who carefully weighs how each PrC will affect the PC to keep it balanced with other party members/DMG CR guidelines - or one that doesn't even bother to look at a players character sheet and trusts their word on how abilities work? Or is it something in between, and where do you draw the line? Isn't a DM drawing any lines at all on any supplement at all and making any judgement calls on any material from any publisher pretty much saying he thinks that material is broken just not in so many words? Now to the OP's credit I have to agree with him that a DM not allowing Clerics just because he heard they were overpowered from some dude at a bus stop is pretty FUBAR IMHO. Still, some DM's do things for flavor purposes in their games so I would probably give it a tenative try. If my suspicions were correct and the DM was a total idiot, I could always walk knowing I gave him a fair shot at implementing his wacky house rule. Personally I'm a big advocate of the players' right to core material, and often advise any DM thinking about altering core material to think very long, and very hard about what kind of impact this infringement will have on their game. You really need to draw a line somewhere though. For example, a while back on of my players was making the old Gray Elf Wizard. So first he took the Gray Elf from the MM, then he took the Elven Paragon class from UA for another +2 Intelligence, then he wanted the Spellcasting Prodigy (or some such Feat) from the FRCS that gives you +2 to Intelligence for the purpose of save DC's and bonus spells. I had to tell him he could pick two out of the three. A third level Wizard with an effective 24 Intelligence by combining classes and abilities from three supplemental or optional sources? Not to mention the natural ability score increases every player gets as their character advances. I suppose that means I'm saying Spellcasting Prodigy is broken or something and the OP should come argue with me about how unfair that is. Sometimes the things that get cut aren't bad in their own right, but you have to pull a few straws here and there to keep the players from breaking the proverbial camel's back. :bored:
Shade Harlok 07-26-05, 07:03 PM	Well I've read through the rest of the posts on this and there is a lot of good things in them. Some are pretty dumb too, but I'm not going to go into that. I DM a game in my own setting which makes it really easy for me to say that stuff from different sources is not allowed. I'll admit that most of the stuff I disallow is from sources I do not have and/or I don't understand how it works out. I am kind of mean to my players in that I'll ask them why their character wants such a feat/skill/prestige class and how they know about it (prestige class with the last there).Makes them think in terms of the role as well as the roll. There are somethings I would like to know from Earthcrosser and the others who have been adament in their defense for stuff not being broken. When is the last time you played a character that was not built for optimum effectiveness? You know a druid that has ranks in carpentry because it was his families trade. Or how about a character with one or more ability scores below 9? Try it out people and if your DM is any good he can handle these characters as well as maxed out battle tank clerics of vengeful deities.
Chade Fallstar 07-26-05, 07:09 PM	There are somethings I would like to know from Earthcrosser and the others who have been adament in their defense for stuff not being broken. When is the last time you played a character that was not built for optimum effectiveness? I believe I am one of the people you are asking, so I will answer. My regular character is a Rogue/Wizard who hates combat. She has 3 stats under 10, and her ONLY offensive spell is Shadow Magic. Despite her flaws(? I wouldn't consider them flaws really, just less skilled areas) I really like RPing her and would do so over many other characters I have played.
Bruunwald 07-26-05, 07:27 PM	Well, 3.0 psionics is vastly different (and underpowered) than 3.5. The half-ogre was originally an LA +1, and let me tell you I learned the hard way how WRONG Wizards was about that. Now it's LA +2. Some here might not agree with that, but obviously Wizards acknowledges it. They changed it, didn't they? Hell, they announced a whole new system only a year or so after the other new system. So they obviously acknowledge their fallibility. It's okay for us to, as well. Nobody here is forced to worship at the feet of Monte Cooke. Only time and lots of people coming to a consensus can tell for sure if something's broken. For instance, I think warlocks are cool, but all my warlock NPCs are dropping like flies. I don't know if that means they're broken, but they're certainly not working out for me, no matter how much I like them, and it does seem like an awful lot of people complain about them. "Broken" or "unbroken" really mostly depends on your style, though. Our style of game really doesn't accomodate half-ogres, though they might fit in nicely in someone else's game. Either way, I think they were broken at first.
Nyarlathotep 07-26-05, 07:34 PM	I agree with the original poster that the word 'broken' is bandied around entirely too much. Sure, some things are more powerful than others, some character builds are better than others, and so on, but that doesn;t make them 'broken'. In large part, it depends on what the player does. One player in the group I DM for recently made a Druid/Wizard with an eye toward getting into the Arcane Hierophant PrC. I was informed by another player that the class was banned in RPGA play because it was 'broken'. I don't know if that's true or not, but I still let him play it because I know that player won't go out of his way to make an abusive character. On the other hand, I have seen very cheesy builds using stuff strictly from the phb. It all depends on the player. The only things I will ban in my games are things that don't fit for setting reasons (i.e. no ninjas in a non-asian flavored campaign) or that actually make the game less fun. An example of the last is the Dervish PrC. I ban that in my games not because it is over powered (It gets a lot of attacks, but there are lots of ways to screw it up) but because the sheer number of attacks makes the Dervish players turn seem to take 20 minutes. Other than that, anything goes.
EvilDuck 07-27-05, 04:24 AM	The DMs who cry broken are the DMs who can't handle their PCs having anything above mediocre. The players who cry broken are just peeved because their characters are being outdone. There's a difference between a legitimate gripe and crying broken.
Earthcrosser599 07-27-05, 02:53 PM	There are somethings I would like to know from Earthcrosser and the others who have been adament in their defense for stuff not being broken. When is the last time you played a character that was not built for optimum effectiveness? You know a druid that has ranks in carpentry because it was his families trade. Or how about a character with one or more ability scores below 9? Try it out people and if your DM is any good he can handle these characters as well as maxed out battle tank clerics of vengeful deities. I'm not sure I understand what this is saying. The last flavor guy I made was a half orc bard that had 12 charisma and 16 strength who blew a feat on Weapon Proficiency: Greatclub. That was a little over a week ago. How does this tie into stuff not being broken? Are you're saying that if I play it in a game with "maxed out battle tank clerics of vengful deities" it will test whether or not my DM is any good...?