Post/Author/DateTime	Post
WayneTheGame 10-13-06, 07:16 AM	It's dawned on me recently that while I enjoy the majority of the new books coming out, WotC continues to make one fatal error when designing new books, and that this fatal error has given rise to the ability to "break" the game with combos that the designers never even thought of. WotC never seems to consider any other supplements that they've put out when they're writing a new one. In fact, the majority of supplements seems to assume that you're running it alone with only the PHB (some of the campaign-specific books assume you have the main campaign setting book as, well, but it usually does not matter). It would appear to me that this is true even of books that are meant to be used together. While I certainly understand this way of thinking (not everyone has the money to buy every book, after all) the truth is that the average gamer does NOT play in this assumed void. Instead of taking the time to figure a few things out and go "Hey, if we let this feat do X, then you can really do some killer stuff if you combine it with Feats Y and Z from Slatbooks X and A23" (or hell, allowing some gamers to playtest it so THEY can figure it out for you), it seems like a designer has a really cool idea and after tossing it back and forth they write it in without knowing that they just gave some CO board munchkin the opportunity to do something totally game-breaking. IMO rather than design with the idea that your audience only has the Core books, design with the opposite view: That your audience adores your books and has purchased each and every one for use in their game. I don't mean this in the context of referencing/using material from these books (although I would like to see that as well in small quantities), but in the context of actually playtesting with combinations from Core AND the other books to try and hopefully avoid incredibly broken combos. I honestly believe that a lot of the "brokenness" of D&D could have been avoided if the designers actually considered to look in books other than the Player's Handbook. But then again, given that most of WotC's sample characters are horribly suboptimal, I wonder if the designers simply don't consider broken combinations because they're unable to think that way... perhaps WotC should invest in a "Powergamer Division" or something with competent players that have the knowhow to look for rules exploits so they can squash them BEFORE the general public can use and abuse them. It's not a question of which way of thinking is good, its a question of having players that KNOW the tricks of the trade so you don't end up with a Feat that is neat when taken in context of PHB/New Book but utterly broken when used in conjunction with feats and classes from the PHB, Completes, Tome of Battle and XPH or whatever else you have. Thoughts/comments?
Stev Beren 10-13-06, 07:41 AM	THe other point is this: WIth the number of books out there it would be impossible, literally, to put out a product that someone could not find a crack in.
ShubNiggurath 10-13-06, 08:23 AM	I think that it IS theoretically possible, it just requires time and money to do it, so Wizards, that is out for profit just as any other company, is not going to do it. It would be enough to give a copy of the new book for free to 5 or 6 members of the CO board 2 weeks before publishing it. Hell, people like Seeker or Khan the Destroyer can find a hole in your new spell/feat/class in 15 minutes. The point is: why should they do it? People buy their books anyway. Plus it gives them an excuse for 4th edition: when things will get too messy, just start printing all the rules again from scratch.
Docrailgun 10-13-06, 08:34 AM	Though I dislike abusive combos at least as much as the next person (worse, that some people bother to scour 10+ books looking for rule language to misparse on purpose), I have to defend the game designers here. There's no reason for them to "consider any other supplements"... it's the DM's responsbility to decide what prestige classes, books, or other combos that are allowed. Most of the "dirty tricks" on the CO board would never be allowed by any sane DM. "Pun-Pun",for instance, doesn't exist in a world without Sarrukh. The silliness of the "Word and the Wish" doesn't happen in my games because I don't allow unlimited wishes. As a GM, I can do that... it's my world and my game. I feel like the problem isn't on WotC's end... they just want to sell books. The problem is players who insist upon abusing everything possible, and DMs who refuse to put their foot down when players try this. Players out to be trying to make the games they play in better... and that doesn't mean reparsing every sentence of every rule of every new book that comes out for abuse. It's dawned on me recently that while I enjoy the majority of the new books coming out, WotC continues to make one fatal error when designing new books, and that this fatal error has given rise to the ability to "break" the game with combos that the designers never even thought of. WotC never seems to consider any other supplements that they've put out when they're writing a new one. In fact, the majority of supplements seems to assume that you're running it alone with only the PHB (some of the campaign-specific books assume you have the main campaign setting book as, well, but it usually does not matter). It would appear to me that this is true even of books that are meant to be used together. While I certainly understand this way of thinking (not everyone has the money to buy every book, after all) the truth is that the average gamer does NOT play in this assumed void. Instead of taking the time to figure a few things out and go "Hey, if we let this feat do X, then you can really do some killer stuff if you combine it with Feats Y and Z from Slatbooks X and A23" (or hell, allowing some gamers to playtest it so THEY can figure it out for you), it seems like a designer has a really cool idea and after tossing it back and forth they write it in without knowing that they just gave some CO board munchkin the opportunity to do something totally game-breaking. IMO rather than design with the idea that your audience only has the Core books, design with the opposite view: That your audience adores your books and has purchased each and every one for use in their game. I don't mean this in the context of referencing/using material from these books (although I would like to see that as well in small quantities), but in the context of actually playtesting with combinations from Core AND the other books to try and hopefully avoid incredibly broken combos. I honestly believe that a lot of the "brokenness" of D&D could have been avoided if the designers actually considered to look in books other than the Player's Handbook. But then again, given that most of WotC's sample characters are horribly suboptimal, I wonder if the designers simply don't consider broken combinations because they're unable to think that way... perhaps WotC should invest in a "Powergamer Division" or something with competent players that have the knowhow to look for rules exploits so they can squash them BEFORE the general public can use and abuse them. It's not a question of which way of thinking is good, its a question of having players that KNOW the tricks of the trade so you don't end up with a Feat that is neat when taken in context of PHB/New Book but utterly broken when used in conjunction with feats and classes from the PHB, Completes, Tome of Battle and XPH or whatever else you have. Thoughts/comments?
Seeker95 10-13-06, 08:51 AM	WotC never seems to consider any other supplements that they've put out when they're writing a new one.That's not a flaw. That's solid fundamental design. The supplements are to supplement the core rules. Because the core rules are *required* to play the game, and none of the supplements are required, every new rule, mechanic, creature, or variant can assume only one thing: you have the core rules. WotC should not assume I have purchased supplement A when it makes rules in supplement B. It should only assume that I have the core rules. A DM that allows multiple supplements into his or her game is responsible for evaluating how such supplemental rules might interact. The DM that allows an entire book, as written, into his or her game is asking for trouble. The DM that allows multiple books is begging for trouble. New rules are best handled a la carte. A DM should consider each rule and how it will impact his or her game. The designers, on the other hand, should consider how any given rule will interact with Core.
Tyveil 10-13-06, 09:03 AM	I agree with the responses that supplements should be designed with only the core material in mind (as WOTC does). It's the responsibility of the DM to decide which supplements he allows and not allow for broken combos.
RobbyPants 10-13-06, 09:57 AM	WotC did the same thing with Magic: the Gathering. Once they get so many series out, it becomes impossible to think of all the combinations. They just take the simple way out and rule that you can only use the last *so many* series in official tournament play. Wow. Imagine if they took this approach with D&D! "Okay, the original Complete books are out, and now we use the Tome of Battle!". Granted, MtG is a collectable card game, where as D&D isn't, so this isn't a perfect analogy... I guess all I'm saying is that this will keep on happening, and it's up the the DM to make a ruling on broken combos.
Tyveil 10-13-06, 10:03 AM	Wow. Imagine if they took this approach with D&D! "Okay, the original Complete books are out, and now we use the Tome of Battle!". Granted, MtG is a collectable card game, where as D&D isn't, so this isn't a perfect analogy... Not so far-fetched for D&D. Just because old supplements are disallowed with newer ones doesn't mean they're unplayable. Just like Magic the DM can decide on "blocks" of supplemental material that is acceptable together (although in Magic those "blocks" are predetermined by Wizards, not a DM).
razorboy 10-13-06, 10:08 AM	Although it's quite easy to make killer combos using all the various supplements, I do not think this is a fundamental flaw on the part of the designers. Rather, it is a fundamental flaw on the part of DM - if a DM is nearsighted enough to say "Sure, play whatever you want" or only give a 2-second look at a feat/spell/item/PrC that player wants to use, that's DM's problem when the game starts falling apart because of supplement material abuse. I've done that all-too-brief glance-over before, and I paid the price for it, so I try to pay more attention now. I've heard the argument "well the DM has only so much time and attention, etc etc etc", but frankly if a DM doesn't have enough time to go over players' questions, characters and requests, then he shouldn't be DMing in the first place. Yes, supplementary materials can give DMs a headache, trying to keep track of them all, but again - a DM can easily cut it short by using "Core books and campaign setting book material only" rule. Supplementary materials should only be used when DM is confident in his knowledge of the material, and his ability to incorporate and anticipate its use.
RobbyPants 10-13-06, 10:08 AM	Not so far-fetched for D&D. Just because old supplements are disallowed with newer ones doesn't mean they're unplayable. Just like Magic the DM can decide on "blocks" of supplemental material that is acceptable together (although in Magic those "blocks" are predetermined by Wizards, not a DM). Yep. Again; about the only real "cure" for this is the DM's common sense...
PolasKasDorion 10-13-06, 10:34 AM	I agree with what has been said so far, especially about the DM's being the ones responsible for in game balance. But to say that Wizards "doesn't consider" anything non-core when putting out new books is not exactly true. Think of all the new Warlock Invocations that people were looking forward to in Dragon Magic and Complete Mage.... granted Complete Mage was designed to complement CA, but Dragon Magic had quite a bit of material the applied directly to non-core classes. Frostburn (I reference because it's the main book I'm using for my current character) also has some feats that can draw from other non-core feats. Snowcasting and that whole tree can benefit from Energy Substitution... and if I remember correctly, it says this explicitely in the text. It's tough to make any general statements about the content of books... or the balancing of books. I personally hate the Miniatures Handbook (one of my players has it, I had never looked at it until he made a Bonded Summoner), but I also have a hard time saying "you can't use that book." I can't complain too much though, because when I play I like to pull stuff from different sources... my Arctic Kobold is a sorcerer built from feats in Frostburn and Races of the Dragon. Ultimately, the DM decides, but has to keep in mind that the game is for fun, and some people (I'm thinking of two specific players in my gaming group) only have fun when they're munchkining every rule and feat from every source to make the ultimate PC... If they're having fun, and it doesn't detract from the other players' fun then I guess I can't really complain too much.
mike_beavers 10-13-06, 10:51 AM	Agree with the other posters. DMs have control of their game. I make a list of what races and prestige classes I allow in my game and post them so they can look. Anthing not core requires that they find somebody to teach them the feat or spell and I find that controls most of the problems. Also it helps to have players that dont want to power game in most cases
Board_Rider 10-13-06, 12:08 PM	I must be a nearsighted DM because I allow all things WoTC. Hell, I even allow psionics and I know almost nothing of the system. Why? Trust and the fact that my campaigns have a certain framework that, I guess, doesn't allow for "broken" combos. If the Players want to deal 600 hit points per attack, fine. I am not going to stop them. Why should I care, as a DM, how fast they clear an encounter? Its their game. If thats how they have fun, so be it. I am on the other end of the spectrum I guess. I hate it when a DM tells me a bunch of restrictions because he thinks it to be "broken" or "not balanced". Are you kidding me? Who loses if I want to play a uber tank? The other Players? Well then I propose then that the other players get off their duffs and be creative or talk to me and tell me how I am ruining their game experience. I will listen. No, my friends, the problem isn't with the material presented. The problem is with how the materials are used by a player and how the DM or other Players feel slighted somehow by that usage. That is flat out the problem.
Bill Bisco: Average Adventurer 10-14-06, 02:02 PM	There are 3 fundamental problems here. #1. The accessory books are intended to balance against the Core books with all of their flaws. The PHB has some pretty shoddy classes. Full of useless abilities. #2 It's not that some of the material is too good. It's the fact that often the material is good or Useless. Crappy feats like Fey Heritage which give you +3 Will saves against Enchantment are a perfect example of this. No one will ever take that. Feats need to be good on their own. It doesn't matter if another fey feat gives you +1 DCs, two feats ain't worth it. #3 Too many of the designers don't have an idea of what's worth playing and what's not. What feats actually have a shot at being used, and which ones don't. They still think that druids need more help, and that Wizards are weaklings at low and high levels. ect. ect.
ZeronHitaro 10-14-06, 03:20 PM	But then again, given that most of WotC's sample characters are horribly suboptimal, I wonder if the designers simply don't consider broken combinations because they're unable to think that way... Disclaimer: The below is not intended as rude in any way, shape, or form. News Flash: D&D isn't meant to be played from the mindset of "Oooh, I wonder how powerful I can make my guy." Junk like that is why we have games like Disgaea, where you can powergame all year long. D&D is meant to be played as "Hey, I like the flavor of this class, it really suits my character's personality." In short: You should be playing to where you have a character you like, regardless of how strong/weak he or she is compared to an optimized character.
CharlieRock 10-14-06, 08:01 PM	PowerGamer Division?! Kewl!:D
Ringmereth 10-14-06, 08:34 PM	On one hand, I think WotC would do well to have that 'Powergamer Division'. Get a dozen CO board regulars, give them free copies of a new sourcebook, and stick them in a room for a few hours, and I'm sure 90% of the insanely broken combos out there could be prevented from ever happening. But on the other hand, crazy combos could and would still be found. Min/maxers will always find ways to be more powerful... and I think that's part of the fun of the game. I like trying to find high-powered combos; whether or not I use them in-game is the DM's call. If balance is a problem in someone's game, then a short chat with the offending player should resolve the issue--if it doesn't, then the problem is in the player, the DM, or both, not a sourcebook.
Solaris 10-14-06, 10:07 PM	How strange. I thought this thread was over here: That's not a flaw. That's solid fundamental design. The supplements are to supplement the core rules. Because the core rules are *required* to play the game, and none of the supplements are required, every new rule, mechanic, creature, or variant can assume only one thing: you have the core rules. WotC should not assume I have purchased supplement A when it makes rules in supplement B. It should only assume that I have the core rules. A DM that allows multiple supplements into his or her game is responsible for evaluating how such supplemental rules might interact. The DM that allows an entire book, as written, into his or her game is asking for trouble. The DM that allows multiple books is begging for trouble. New rules are best handled a la carte. A DM should consider each rule and how it will impact his or her game. The designers, on the other hand, should consider how any given rule will interact with Core.
Lina_Inverse 10-14-06, 11:39 PM	On one hand, I think WotC would do well to have that 'Powergamer Division'. Get a dozen CO board regulars, give them free copies of a new sourcebook, and stick them in a room for a few hours, and I'm sure 90% of the insanely broken combos out there could be prevented from ever happening. But on the other hand, crazy combos could and would still be found. Min/maxers will always find ways to be more powerful... and I think that's part of the fun of the game. I like trying to find high-powered combos; whether or not I use them in-game is the DM's call. If balance is a problem in someone's game, then a short chat with the offending player should resolve the issue--if it doesn't, then the problem is in the player, the DM, or both, not a sourcebook. On the other hand stuff like pun-pun and the hurler probably wouldnt get though. Theres a large diffrence between standard min/max, CoDZilla, and OMGWTFBBQ. Wizards needs to stop printing that last type of stuff. In all seriousness, D&D designers obviously have no idea what there doing, they barely playtest this stuff much less try and break it.
Christman 10-15-06, 11:32 AM	While it is true that the DM needs to be responsible for his own game, I don't agree he should do that by limiting the players. The few times I've DMed, I tell all of my players that they're free to make whatever reasonable character they can think of. I always get the response "Well, what's reasonable?!". The answer, always, is this: "If a 40 HD Red Dragon with 20 Sorcerer Levels can't find a way to kill you one on one with some effort, your character isn't reasonable." This tends to get my point across fast. In this sense, the players feel they have their freedom to make what they want, but at the same time know my limits. Now granted, I have had players go past those boundaries and try to make a character powerful enough to kill the above mentioned dragon easily by themself. If and when this happens, That player is first asked to stop. If they won't relent, I take the matter into the game and deal with them using various tools I make specifically to thwart a power gamer. When that doesn't help, there's always kicking the player from the game.
Ranger REG 10-16-06, 10:04 PM	Thoughts/comments? Personally, I do not like a supplement that tells me I need or require another supplement besides the core rulebooks. In EN World, someone accused AEG of adopting the "collectible rules" model that you were describing for Spycraft d20. Having said that, I can forgive WotC if they do put out such product as long they minimize the quantity of such "collectible rules" products and that other supplements are optional, not required. When I bought Heroes of Battles, I thought I could simply bypass Miniatures Handbook. But having owned HoB, I felt like I need to get Miniatures Handbook, though I resisted it everyday, or at least my nearly-empty wallet keep telling me. I'm telling you, I don't like having that urge. Supplements should supplement the core rules, not overshadow them. (Tome of Battles gives further affirmation that the Fighter class is diminished as a PC class option. If that's the author's and/or WotC's intent, then they succeeded.)
Tenebrous_Sage 10-17-06, 02:22 AM	I once had a DM felt core was balanced and non-core was broken. My response to him was something like this (Radical Taoist's C.o.D.-zilla is a good way to demonstrate it in game): Something that many DMs seem to forget is that "if the players have access to something, so does the DM." If the players make horribly broken characters that can stomp all over Boccob at level 10 than the DM can use the same resources to come up with a way to counteract/thwart the players.
WayneTheGame 10-17-06, 08:11 AM	Maybe I didn't explain myself.. what I meant by considering other supplements was that they should: When playtesting things, don't limit the playtesting to their baseline assumption of 4 PCs, Elite Array, Fighter/Cleric/Wizard/Rogue mindset. This is WHY things get broken, because sure if you use Core only Feat X is great, but when you add in Feats Y and Z (which the designers of Feat X never bothered to consider) you get some super combo. I'm not saying they should playtest everything with hundreds of various combos, just give some thought to it when they're thinking of a new feat to make sure it doesn't open the floodgates to horrible abuse. Make more books like PHBII/Complete Mage (yes I know the other Complete v2s are coming out) that take non-core material into consideration at least with giving new abilities and spells and whatnot. This part I think we can all agree on... In short I'm not saying they should require you to own every book they put out, just that themselves, internally should THINK before writing up some feat to make sure that it doesn't provide overkill when used by a group that DOES own all their supplements. A little extra thought doesn't hurt anyone and in a game as varied as Dungeons & Dragons, it's almost required to avoid "breaking" the game. Yes, I agree it's the DM's job to limit things, but speaking from experience a DM usually doesn't have the time to sit down and do what the designers should have done before they put out the book in the first place.
razorboy 10-17-06, 08:33 AM	Yes, I agree it's the DM's job to limit things, but speaking from experience a DM usually doesn't have the time to sit down and do what the designers should have done before they put out the book in the first place. See my post above: if a DM does not have time to sit down with the players, go over their proposed characters and the feats/PrCs/spells/races that they want to use from various supplements, then he shouldn't be DMing in the first place: DMing requires more time and work commitment from DM than it does from players in order to run a fun and successful game. Making sure that all the player characters are kosher before starting a game, is part of that effort. Sorry if I come across too harsh. I've been in the games (and DM'd some unfortunately) where the DM (being myself from time to time) did not want to put in the effort, did not preview the characters beforehand, and generally did a half-assed job resulting in a lackluster (or outright frustrating) game. If anything, these experiences taught me that in order to DM you have to be ready to make a commitment and an effort, weeding out the supplements is part of it.
Board_Rider 10-17-06, 11:20 AM	In short I'm not saying they should require you to own every book they put out, just that themselves, internally should THINK before writing up some feat to make sure that it doesn't provide overkill when used by a group that DOES own all their supplements. I respectfully disagree with this statement. WoTCs job is to create and sell. They should not have to worry how players will use material in correlation to other material. That is a DMs job (as razorboy and others have pointed out). I admit though I may be in the minority when it comes to thinking something broken though. I don't think anything is broken as written. It is how the players use feats, classes etc. that make things "broken", not the material itself. Again, thats not WoTCs fault or responsibility. This thread alone proves that WoTC cannot please everyone. What one person thinks broken, another doesn't.
Seeker95 10-17-06, 01:41 PM	It is how the players use feats, classes etc. that make things "broken", not the material itself.Quoted For Truth.
Shaddris 10-17-06, 02:32 PM	I actualy have a simple solution: What ever the players do, they can expect that to be used against them. If they come up with a combo to one shot the 40 HD red, someone else probably knows it as well. (Thinking the split twin ray of stupidity here, or ramped ego whip spam cheese) I haven't run a game where I have had to do that though.:D On side note, I believe that WotC powered up clerics and druids so people would play them for the fun, not as a sacrifice to ensure the group lives. We used to say in my old groups, "Ok, who is going to bite the bullet and play the priest this time?"
AaronDireBear 10-17-06, 02:42 PM	Two Words: GM Discretion Though an epic rogue with Sneak attack of opportunity, plus improved combat reflexes plus Robilar's gambit plus combat experties is pretty damn rough. Pity nothing is EVER subject to sneak attack at epic level.
Board_Rider 10-17-06, 04:00 PM	Two Words: GM Discretion Though an epic rogue with Sneak attack of opportunity, plus improved combat reflexes plus Robilar's gambit plus combat experties is pretty damn rough. Pity nothing is EVER subject to sneak attack at epic level. I choose an Iron Golem, with Fighter levels, for the win. ;)
OneWinged4ngel 10-17-06, 04:52 PM	By the contrary, I think the heart of D&D's fatal issues lie in core, with imbalances laid in deep with core material (particularly as far as class mechanics and such go). For supplements, I've found it easy to adapt things. *shrug*
Ranger REG 10-19-06, 04:02 AM	Maybe I didn't explain myself.. what I meant by considering other supplements was that they should: When playtesting things, don't limit the playtesting to their baseline assumption of 4 PCs, Elite Array, Fighter/Cleric/Wizard/Rogue mindset. This is WHY things get broken, because sure if you use Core only Feat X is great, but when you add in Feats Y and Z (which the designers of Feat X never bothered to consider) you get some super combo. I'm not saying they should playtest everything with hundreds of various combos, just give some thought to it when they're thinking of a new feat to make sure it doesn't open the floodgates to horrible abuse. Make more books like PHBII/Complete Mage (yes I know the other Complete v2s are coming out) that take non-core material into consideration at least with giving new abilities and spells and whatnot. This part I think we can all agree on... In short I'm not saying they should require you to own every book they put out, just that themselves, internally should THINK before writing up some feat to make sure that it doesn't provide overkill when used by a group that DOES own all their supplements. A little extra thought doesn't hurt anyone and in a game as varied as Dungeons & Dragons, it's almost required to avoid "breaking" the game. Yes, I agree it's the DM's job to limit things, but speaking from experience a DM usually doesn't have the time to sit down and do what the designers should have done before they put out the book in the first place. In the case above, the development of new books would take much longer since playtesting period must be extended and will result in fewer book releases per quarter.
Grand Theft Otto 10-19-06, 12:39 PM	You are right. My spice rack sucks because a meal I prepared by dumping everything in the pot didnt turn out well. If they built the sourcebooks based around every possible combo, we'd have pure garbage feats being produced. OMG, skill focus is broken at +3 because of combo Z. Why didnt the designers make it +1 instead?
Ranger REG 10-20-06, 02:54 AM	You are right. My spice rack sucks because a meal I prepared by dumping everything in the pot didnt turn out well. Well, after six years of material published, the rules bound to get broken up because of so many piling up, it's hard to keep track. Multiply that by three (because WotC have three rpg lines, not one), and take into account the designer pool is much less than TSR's, we are going to end up a bunch of mess that can only be solved by resetting the rules a la new edition. Not that I'm calling for it. Partly our fault as finicky demanding customers: some of us want more prestige classes and less base classes; the others like more base classes and less prestige classes. More crunch and less fluff; less crunch and more fluff. As a collective fanbase, we are definitely bipolar.
Sigurd van Norhusen 10-20-06, 07:14 AM	I support better quality control - that is: more testing with at least *some* other supplements to work out the kinks. I am sorry if you think that I am unreasonable to await a certain niveau in the supplements, but I will stand by it. But hell, even core is broken in places, so I don't know how much good it would do.
Seeker95 10-20-06, 09:02 AM	even core is broken in places, so I don't know how much good it would do.Broken means it does not work. Core works. But just because it works doesn't mean it can't be broken by someone intent on doing so.
ShadezofDis 10-20-06, 03:02 PM	I'll chime in with a: Nothing is "broken" if you are the DM, the closest you can have to "broken" is a badly balanced party (a friend of mine is suffering this in a game, the DM favors girl players over male {surprise surprise!} and thus the girls {yes! more than one! amazing!} in the game are far more powerful than the guys. Obviously this leads the guys to feeling pretty worthless (and since there isn't much in the way of "free thinking" {ie. not following what the DM anticipates} there isn't much of a way for them to build a base of power through courting allies) That's what I consider broken, not a WoTC problem though :) As a DM I try to keep the party relatively balanced in power (though I do give bonuses to players who follow my "script" but I don't give penalties for deveating from my "script" and this is just because I want to be able to use the 30 pages of notes I made for an area, not cry myself to sleep because the pcs decided they didn't want to go the direction I thought they would *g*) I really don't care how powerful the party is, I have access to NPC's, the Hells, the Abyss, various monsters, ect Make whatever character you want, I'll still provide a challenge.
Ranger REG 10-21-06, 03:23 AM	I support better quality control - that is: more testing with at least *some* other supplements to work out the kinks. I am sorry if you think that I am unreasonable to await a certain niveau in the supplements, but I will stand by it. Hmmm. Then it becomes a case of which supplements it should be compatible with. And if you don't have the right one ... more headache for the DM. Some might take this personally frustrating ... just as you and the OP are now.
Derren S. 10-21-06, 04:32 AM	I actualy have a simple solution: What ever the players do, they can expect that to be used against them. If they come up with a combo to one shot the 40 HD red, someone else probably knows it as well. (Thinking the split twin ray of stupidity here, or ramped ego whip spam cheese) I haven't run a game where I have had to do that though.:D And 2 sessions later you have a DBz style world where everyone and their grandmother can deal thousands of damage or level every city in the world with a single though and ancient dragons replaced kobolds and orcs as the weak default enemy.
Seeker95 10-21-06, 07:30 AM	And 2 sessions later you have a DBz style world.Depends on whether your *players* have the spirit of the game, or are "out to win". If your players insist on abusing rules, then direct them to the nearest game console and go look for folks who want to play D&D. Lots of store vendors keep merchandise on tables out on the sidewalk. It would be very easy to take something qwithout paying. That doesn't mean I have to take it.
Just another user 10-21-06, 06:02 PM	I once had a DM felt core was balanced and non-core was broken. My response to him was something like this (Radical Taoist's C.o.D.-zilla is a good way to demonstrate it in game): Something that many DMs seem to forget is that "if the players have access to something, so does the DM." If the players make horribly broken characters that can stomp all over Boccob at level 10 than the DM can use the same resources to come up with a way to counteract/thwart the players. While that is certainly true I don't find the "arm race" way a good way to game balance or to keep characters in check, because it tend to end in one of two way, either they win (and they are even more powerful, or at least, wealthy) or they lose (and then they are dead or, at best, unplayable). Either ways the campaign is ruined. You should be able fix the problem way before you reach that point.
The Club 10-22-06, 12:59 AM	Disclaimer: The below is not intended as rude in any way, shape, or form. News Flash: D&D isn't meant to be played from the mindset of "Oooh, I wonder how powerful I can make my guy." Junk like that is why we have games like Disgaea, where you can powergame all year long. D&D is meant to be played as "Hey, I like the flavor of this class, it really suits my character's personality." In short: You should be playing to where you have a character you like, regardless of how strong/weak he or she is compared to an optimized character. Says who? D&D is still a game. It has rules, which represent the physics of the game world. Since the career of the average adventurer is kind of dangerous and will involve a fair amount of deadly conflict, wouldn't it make perfect sense for a character to train to make himself as effective as possible? If I'm playing Monopoly, I may decide that I don't want to be that kind of real estate mogul, and refuse to buy property and bankrupt the other players. Should I be upset if the other players decide to do things that the rules reward? It's common to complain that an optimizer is somehow not roleplaying. Typically, however, the narrative elements of a character don't have much to do with how he fights, unless that is the focus of the game to begin with. In what way does reduced competence increase the ability to tell an interesting story with a character? The Club
Gryllmyre 10-22-06, 01:08 AM	Even if supplements fully took into consideration all the various other supplements available, one element of gameplay can still break the game: the houserule. Fortunately, that very same element can fix the existing problems with multiple supplement combos. If I was more interested in combing through all the books and gleening from them what I liked to make my campaigns more interesting, I'd do so. but I'm just not interested in spending all that money. If there is any major flaw in my mind, it would be that DnD would require you to purchase all those books to make use of recent adventure material. So far, fortunately, I haven't seen the need.
Ranger REG 10-22-06, 03:38 AM	Says who? D&D is still a game. It has rules, which represent the physics of the game world. Since the career of the average adventurer is kind of dangerous and will involve a fair amount of deadly conflict, wouldn't it make perfect sense for a character to train to make himself as effective as possible? If I'm playing Monopoly, I may decide that I don't want to be that kind of real estate mogul, and refuse to buy property and bankrupt the other players. Should I be upset if the other players decide to do things that the rules reward? You're comparing D&D the role-playing game with Monopoly the boardgame? :uh-huh: Granted, I have had players that actually treat D&D as a game that is so disconnected from their PC, they avoid having to act out (i.e., role-play) the PC. They're more interested in action rather than interaction.
Man in the Funny Hat 10-22-06, 03:32 PM	It's dawned on me recently that while I enjoy the majority of the new books coming out, WotC continues to make one fatal error when designing new books, and that this fatal error has given rise to the ability to "break" the game with combos that the designers never even thought of. - - - Thoughts/comments?Only that this is not a flaw of D&D. It is a flaw of WotC. However, it can equally be said to be a flaw of individual DM's who fail to adequately consider what they include as rules in their games. I believe it is important to make the distinction between what is a problem with D&D core rules, what is a problem with SUPPLEMENTAL rules, and what is a problem with DM's who fail to grasp that EVERYTHING is optional - but that they themselves must accept the consequences of what they leave in, take out, and alter - not WotC.
The Club 10-22-06, 07:28 PM	You're comparing D&D the role-playing game with Monopoly the boardgame? :uh-huh: Granted, I have had players that actually treat D&D as a game that is so disconnected from their PC, they avoid having to act out (i.e., role-play) the PC. They're more interested in action rather than interaction. Yes I am, to illustrate that D&D is a game. I'm disputing the point that D&D is "meant" to be played in a certain way, and that this way involves ignoring what the rules do. To quote Ron Edwards (without getting all narrativist), "System does matter." Considering the incredible variety of character customization options in this edition of D&D, I'm not sure it makes sense to say that D&D isn't meant to stress in-game character abilities. Me? I get all immersiony when I play D&D, but I don't pretend the rules aren't there. They represent the physics of the game world, so I wouldn't be much of an immersionist if I designed my character abilities without an eye toward the game world itself. There really aren't crunchy rules for narrative elements, or those that exist aren't stressed, at any rate. There is no "Tragic Hero" attribute score. But my characters tend to be fairly effective, and they're a lot more effective than characters cobbled together more or less at random. In any case, I don't see a one true way to role-play in general, and I think that applies with D&D as well. The game system itself doesn't really tilt toward a lot of moral dilemmas and character development. Many of us hope for that from our groups, but the game itself makes no such demands. Because of this, it's possible to have an excellent role-player/storyteller who also observes the rules enough to make overbearing characters. The Club
bruiserdeck 10-22-06, 10:03 PM	If your game is so broken that its no longer fun than you DM sucks. in the end the game is an aspect of your DM. your DM is the one true god in the game. if your game is boring because a 3rd level mage can clear a cr7 encounter with a few spells he dug out of some obscure book. well its your DMs fault for allowing it. WOTC = provide all opportunities and tools to create any world the DM and players want to adventure in. DM = refine the possibilities into a cohesive and interesting story/world.
Braids 10-23-06, 02:25 AM	It is the DM's job to regulate their campaign. If something causes trouble they should address the issue. Otherwise everything Wizards puts out would be underpowered and eventually uncreative.
Ranger REG 10-24-06, 02:29 AM	Me? I get all immersiony when I play D&D, but I don't pretend the rules aren't there. They represent the physics of the game world, so I wouldn't be much of an immersionist if I designed my character abilities without an eye toward the game world itself. Well, I'm not asking you to dismiss the rules or pretend it's not there. The rules exist to resolve a situation (when it comes up) in an accepted manner. D&D is far more dynamic than Monopoly. That is in itself both a blessing and a curse.