I've summarized this activity in a handy, easy-to-read flowchart.
Now, I guess if that pattern works for you, awesome, great, you keep on truckin'. But I am sick of it--and I'm sure I'm not alone here. "Overpowered" is such a broad, generic term that just doesn't apply equally to every game. In a super-optimized game, your Clerics and Druids are gonna stomp all over, but in a sub-optimal game where characters aren't planned out as 20-level builds, you may well have a Fighter that struts his stuff in ways the party Wizard just can't keep up with. Go ahead and laugh, but I've played games like that. But that just goes to show you that the character who's capable of blowing everyone else out of the water could be anyone.
Furthermore, there are a number of people willing to drop the "O" word on a class or feature that they've never even seen used in an actual game. I know people, I game with people who have said the following:
"Warmages? Absolutely not. I read you can cast in full-plate armor with them. They're not allowed in my game."
"Warlocks? They get all of their abilities at will?! That's ridiculously overpowered!"
"Spellthieves don't need a primary casting stat to cast their stolen spells. That's just munchkin powergamers trying to get something for nothing!"
Frankly, I'm sick of the O term itself. I feel like it's a knee-jerk reaction to classes, abilities, feats, races, and whatever else that is new and unfamiliar. So, taking everything I could into account, I present you with a more complex flowchart that will help you out if you find a class that just looks "overpowered" to you. Check it out:
You'll notice there's a common theme here: when a problem is diagnosed, the solution is to talk to your players. This is my biggest problem with the glut of nerfage threads that pop up. "I haven't actually played the class, but I can tell it's way overpowered!" or "Help! My player has a Warblade and it's overpowered! What do I do?!" are way, way too common complaints. If you're really having a problem with a player's character, you should consider a few things.
One, maybe it's just the player. If you have a single player who is fantastic at optimization, and three more guys that are either inexperienced or simply bad at making powerful characters, then it doesn't matter what class the optimizer plays, he's probably going to come out on top. Because even if he plays a Healer, he's going to know how to make the best darn Healer on the table. The guy playing the halfling Warlock with Improved Unarmed Strike and Power Attack just isn't going to shine here. In addition, if you have a spotlight hog, he may be good at turning the attention to himself, and he might play a certain class specifically because it allows him to do so more easily.
Maybe it's all presective: when the flashy wizard flies around launching reality-bending spells accompanied by a few good rolls, the fighter swingin' his pointy metal stick may feel a little outshone. On the other hand, the Wizard who hangs in the back and picks at things with spells may feel weak or worthless when the big tank of a warrior charges in and full-attacks the Big Bad Evil Entity for a ton of damage.
Or, maybe you actually do encounter a class that's overpowered. Consider that it's not the player's fault. (Well, I think that's rare, but it does happen.) In that case, what you need to do is talk to your players. Talk to the guy playing the character in question. Ask him if he's noticed how much he's totally dominating gameplay. Ask the rest of your players how they feel about it. Ultimately, if they're all having fun and saying things like, "Yeah, he totally owns in combat, but it's cool, we're all a team," count yourself lucky, 'cause you've got a pretty cool group there. If no one in the group is upset, then the primary purpose of a game of D&D is being fulfilled.
Now, if your players are unhappy, then you've got a real problem. Resist the urge to jump on the boards and ask for advice on how to soften up the class. You should discuss options for changing or rebuilding the class or character with them at that point. Depending on the temperament and personalities of the people in your group, you may want to make this a group discussion or simply talk it over with the individual running the offending character. Under no circumstances, however, should you storm into the nest session and tell your player, "Oh, by the way, that class feature you're so fond of? Yeah, that's gone. What? Don't look at me like that. I asked the internets and they agreed."
Instead of trying to find creative ways to smack the class around with the nerfhammer, put that energy into finding creative ways for a challenge to bypass the character's strengths. Just bumping up the CR with bigger creatures is generally a bad way to do this. Hitting a strong character with things they may not expect is a much better way to deal. Try incorporeal creatures, things that are immune to magic like golems, intelligent monsters that can use tactics and set up environmental conditions in their favor.
When you do come to the boards, have the consent of your group behind you and you'll be in a better position to both receive and evaluate the advice you might get. I firmly believe that if you take the time to discuss these things with your players before complaining on the internet about them, your gaming experience will be all the better for it.
Anyway, this maxim was a major player on the boards some time ago, but recently doesn't seem to be coming into as much use:
Every character is directed by a human. Every DM is (probably :P ) also a human. Instead of DMs slamming down their nerf bats and using game mechanics to try to patch all the problems they perceive (especially the ones that aren't really problems upon close examination) and players reacting with crazier builds until a competition begins and then state of war is declared, the humans behind those two parties need to sit down and figure out what will be the most fun for everyone involved.
It's just a game, and if we talk about how we want to play and what we want to play, there's no reason everyone can't be happy.
And a 20th fighter isn’t really that interesting for a reason... but that is why they gave fighters free multiclassing. Plus your point about optimization is important. I certainly think about it a lot more than my comrades. But having DMed a game or two, I don’t want people to think my character is overpowered, so i take this into account with my optimization and I think that is what is really missing. I remember reading the thread on the Epic boards on Optimizing a lvl 60 wizard to try to defeat Zeus. That just isn’t that fun if you ask me.
Once again Great Post. We hope to see more flow charts in the future.
- Whenever the Wizard prepares "Fireball", pit the party against a red dragon, if he prepares "Lightning Bolt", pit them against a blue dragon
- Whenever the wizard is out adventuring, have thieves sneak into his house to steal all his spellbooks.
- If the wizard carries all spellbooks with him, make sure that some rogue will use "sleight of hand" and steal it
- Always pit the party against monsters with high spell resistance, and reach weaponry which always target the back line wizard instead of the front line fighter.
- All the frail wizards populating and guarding the dungeon are excellent at counterspelling and can "dispel magic" with great efficieny.
No need for the DM to houserule in order to nerf the wizard, all the nerfing is in the challenges presented.
To make a long story short: If a character's skills are so strong that he is dominating the party (this is the main problem with overpowered stuff), the remedy might be to modify the challenges.
Sig
What I do agree with you is that it should be a carefully thought out process, not a simple "Look! That class works differently! Overpowered!" approach.
And, generally, classes aren't overpowered. (Unless the class offers d12 hit points, full BAB, three good saves, and 8 skill points per level, that is.) Class abilities, on the other hand, can be, and should be readily fixed instead of simply banning classes altogether.
When I got around to reading the class in the ToB about 2 months in to that campaign, I immediately reached for my "Overpowered" hammer and then stopped to consider. The character hadn't been overshadowing the others - granted, he showed a different sort of power, using a dramatic flourish to achieve what the party's paladin would do by sheer brute force - but he hadn't demonstrated any of the usual symptoms of an overpowered character. In the end, I had a good, close look at the character sheet, and found that whilst the character was quite potentially the most powerful in the party, he was being played carefully to avoid overshadowing the others (the Paladin in particular, who played a very similar role).
I find that a responsible player (who knew such a thing existed?) is infinitely better than a heavy-handed rules fix. If it fits their image of their character, let them play it - on the condition that they play it responsibly, and don't overshadow those who rely on a similar methods to achieve their ends.
It's a cooperative storytelling game, not a wargame. DMs should be worried about telling good stories, not figuring out how to kill an ubercharacter.
A DM really shouldn't have to worry about custom tailoring his campaign to take advantage of a classes weaknesses. You shouldn't suddenly have to shift the focus of your game to cater to some disruptive broken class. Yeah, I could be up all night figuring out the perfect way to screw over that broken druid and his cheesy spells, but that's not the purpose of a DM. In fact, once I start thinking like that, I'm getting into adversarial DMing.
It's a cooperative storytelling game, not a wargame. DMs should be worried about telling good stories, not figuring out how to kill an ubercharacter.
And it also runs the other way, the DM shouldn't have to use kid gloves because the party chose weak classes and weak feats. They shouldn't need to custom build encounters to make sure that a class can be useable in that situation.
1. The classes which are overpowering in the real environment of concrete gaming, thus creating overpowering characters, compared to other characters in the same group.
The problems which arise due to this problem can be best solved by reference to your flow chart.
2. The classes which are, on their own, abstractly and mechanically stronger than other classes.
This is not a problem of play, or of balance with other characters, but a problem of design, and of balance with other classes. Classes which are mechanically stronger than other classes can lead to problem (1), but not necessarily so. A 20th level wizard has more power than a 20th level fighter, but if your party works together, both players like their characters and their characters have the opportunity to shine, this does not have to be a problem.
So the discussion about 'overpoweredness' is often a double discussion: a practical discussion, which can be, in the last analysis, solved only by communication between the players and the DM; and a theoretical discussion which addresses design problems.
The practical discussion should lead to a better game for the specific case of you and your friends, while the theoretical discussion should lead, in the long term, to a more balanced and thus better game for all.
Good thread.
And it also runs the other way, the DM shouldn't have to use kid gloves because the party chose weak classes and weak feats. They shouldn't need to custom build encounters to make sure that a class can be useable in that situation.
It's possible for a party to be +1 or even +2 ECL than their actual level would indicate based upon a little extra treasure wealth, player optimization, player combat strategy awesomeness, DM campaign plot house rules, or any number of factors. A good DM adjusts adversaries appropriately.
Conversely, a party might be -1 or even -2 ECL than their actual level would indicate based upon a little less treasure wealth, player suboptimalization, player simple strategies, DM campaign plot house rules, or any number of factors. A good DM adjusts adversaries appropriately.
Thirdly, the party just might be an ECL their actual level indicates and it's only a third person's view of their personal taste that gives an impression of a different ECL, in which case whatever the DM does is "wrong" for that third person.
I find that the phenomenon of "overpowered" is very much a relative thing, but also it points a lot at the group dynamic. If someone has Mad Optimizing Skills and wants to make his PC outshine the others, to the Abyss with them, then you are going to quite likely have problems. If someone is a skilled optimizer but is looking out for the good (and the fun!) of the group, he is going to spend at least some of his Phenomenal Cosmic Power helping out and buffing up his party mates so that the group as a whole is actually more powerful. (Yes, I'm looking at *you,* druid and cleric.)
If you have a confrontational group dynamic where each player is trying to one-up the others, you're going to hear "overpowered" a lot more often than if you have some genuine team spirit.
Of course the flipside of this is when you have a group of highly skilled optimizers as players with a less mechanically skilled DM (or vice versa). In these cases the DM has to try and seek out a level of challenge that is appropriate to the prowess of the PCs to keep the game interesting and fun. Yes, I know, there is a school of thought -- which I have some sympathy with -- that you shouldn't just gimp or pump up a given set of foes because the players are doing X with their characters, but at the same time, it's not much fun if you are constantly TPKing the party or they are rolling over *every one* of your challenges and even BBEGs like they were naked, lobotomized kobolds deprived of tools.
Personally, I think there are a couple of kinds of candidates for something being "overpowered." Generally, power comes at a price. When you get huge power at the expense of a huge weakness, then you have to worry about balance simply because there may be some stupid trick to paper over the weakness -- or that you simply have a "one trick pony" who annihilates everything that can't stand before his power and gets wiped out by anything that can stand before his power long enough to exploit his weakness. *Usually* this kind of potential for being overpowered is self-correcting, because the player eventually tires of his one-trick pony and/or his character gets wiped out due to his weakness. In the shorter term, though, such a character can be potentially disruptive to the flow of keeping the game challenging (winning too easily or losing too abruptly).
The other potential for being "overpowered" is power at no price -- when you get something that is so good that it far outweighs its price, or you get something moderately useful for essentially no cost whatsoever. In some cases, there is a hidden price -- for instance, clerics are indisputably powerful, but (1) given that they gain their power from devotion to a higher being or belief system, there should be some significant code of conduct essentially and (2) they should realize that the party is, to an extent, counting on them to occasionally have to "waste" combat actions to heal people. In other cases, where seems to be little hidden price, then you may have to step in as a DM to actually introduce a downside of some kind, or simply remove the offending rules *by consent of the group*.
One of the things that bothers me, as an example of this "power at no price" phenomenon, is the problem of "divine inheritance." Every time a new book is released and allowed into a campaign which contains new cleric and druid spells, every cleric and druid PC and NPC instantly gets access to any spells allowed from those books, for free. There is no opportunity cost. Sure, a new PrC might be amazing or even troubling, but at least you have to meet the prereqs (and take it instead of PrCs X, Y, or Z you were considering) -- same with feats. But a cleric character just wakes up one day and has a sea of new choices without having to do anything to get it.
I'm not sure what the best method of dealing with this is (and it's hard to tell a player who's all excited about having just finally purchased a copy of Spell Compendium that, no, he can't try out all 1001 new spells), but it is the sort of thing that a DM, together with his group, has to consider a bit beyond the mere implications of "cherry-picking" the best options from each book... the acquisition of new material for no cost at all.
I guess my point is that just because the term "overpowered" is often overused and badly used doesn't mean that it isn't a potentially valid term under some circumstances. It shouldn't be automatically dismissed any more than it should be used as a knee-jerk reaction, but instead it should be a flag for "hm, this could use some discussion, is this causing a problem in my game?"
How this is dealt with is fundamental to how a campaign is run. There's no simple answer, but the attitude shown in the original post is right. The DM should try to produce a campaign where everybody gets to do something he enjoys doing. If that happens, it works.
It kinda takes me back to the first game I was GM for. It was a D20 Future game and all my players were new to table top rp. The characters was quite unbalanced compared to each other, especially the psion who got dropped in every single one of the first 7 encounters. Compared to the super soldier of the party, who really kicked butt in combat situations (often while carrying around the unconscious psion).
None of the players got mad or unhappy with the game though. In fact, then the psion, who just messed up a jump check and got reduced to 1 hp (from a failed jump check), sat and cheered loudly at the super soldier when he jumped from a car to a truck and the proceeded to rip the roof of it.
That was the best group, every one helped each other out and covering for each other weaknesses. and the game was just hilarious, especially when one encounter had resulted in the psion getting dropped and the techie getting paralyzed from the waist. The soldier carried both on his shoulders while running from two cloned raptors while the techie threw grenades at the raptors.
Unbalanced characters really only cause problems when your players are immature about it or you have a bad GM. There is no really omnipotent class that’s good at everything (with the sole exception of artificer perhaps), there is always weak points you can aim at to give the player a challenge and let the other characters shine.
Now while I never had problems with unbalanced characters causing trouble for the game, I do know a group that has trouble with overpowered and underpowered play. The GM is very by the book and the players have to optimize they characters to the max or they are likely not to survive more than a single gaming session. My friend who plays in the group always have a few extra char sheets with pre-made characters with him since it have happen more than once that they had to re-roll characters two or three times in a single night.
I believe the biggest difference between my group and his, is that while they focus mostly on battles, my group favors the roleplaying aspect of the game. And it doesn’t matter if your character have 100 in strength, it doesn’t make you a better roleplayer, only rollplayer.
Conversely, a party might be -1 or even -2 ECL than their actual level would indicate based upon a little less treasure wealth, player suboptimalization, player simple strategies, DM campaign plot house rules, or any number of factors. A good DM adjusts adversaries appropriately.
Quoted for truth! I once had a group who all wanted to play Anthropomorphic eagles (Savage Species) and apparently had no idea how to exploit the fact that they could fly at will. (Hint: ranged weapons are your friends. Also, your claws are... suboptimal weapons, even if you DO get 2 attacks.) I wound up mentally giving them ECL -2 levels just to make things fair.
This is quite possible the best thread I’ve ever read.
It kinda takes me back to the first game I was GM for. It was a D20 Future game and all my players were new to table top rp. The characters was quite unbalanced compared to each other, especially the psion who got dropped in every single one of the first 7 encounters. Compared to the super soldier of the party, who really kicked butt in combat situations (often while carrying around the unconscious psion).
None of the players got mad or unhappy with the game though. In fact, then the psion, who just messed up a jump check and got reduced to 1 hp (from a failed jump check), sat and cheered loudly at the super soldier when he jumped from a car to a truck and the proceeded to rip the roof of it.
Now while I never had problems with unbalanced characters causing trouble for the game, I do know a group that has trouble with overpowered and underpowered play. The GM is very by the book and the players have to optimize they characters to the max or they are likely not to survive more than a single gaming session. My friend who plays in the group always have a few extra char sheets with pre-made characters with him since it have happen more than once that they had to re-roll characters two or three times in a single night.
I believe the biggest difference between my group and his, is that while they focus mostly on battles, my group favors the roleplaying aspect of the game. And it doesn’t matter if your character have 100 in strength, it doesn’t make you a better roleplayer, only rollplayer.
Ideally in my imaginary perfect group, there would be a nice combination of the two. The tactical part of my brain loves combat, strategy and optimizing, but group interaction like in your group is the ideal. If you have a mature group of players you should be able to have that combo, one character may be significantly stronger in combat, but as long as nobody is marginalized all game it should be all good. Getting mad at a teammate of yours because he contributes more in combat is kind of like the hobbits getting mad at Gandalf or Aragorn.
In any case, if you are having a problem it is likely that your playing a extremely low or high level game. A low level arcane caster with bad spell choices will be a burden in combat, whereas a well played high level caster with a good spell selection and moderate optimization can bypass many obstacles and encounters with a creative (or not so creative) use of his spells.
At very low level its more likely that an arcane class will feel useless, at very high level its more likely that a straight melee will feel useless. It doesn’t mean one or the other is (the O word) or (the U word). Both of these problems can be fixed by talking to the players. It seems to me that its better to help out the ones that feel irrelevant, as removing class abilities can cause resentment. (unless a player is doing something abusive like finding a way to get unlimited wishes/making a pun-pun)
The biggest power imbalance problems that cause dissatisfaction are typically bad spell selection (causing the arcane caster to feel worthless) and a combination of being somewhat invalidated in combat by casters AND having nothing to contribute out of combat (straight melee classes). If you help the caster choose better/more useful spells, or give the fighter an extended skill list and a few extra skill points per level will go a long way towards making them feel more useful, even if they aren’t the best combatants in the group, and will create player satisfaction in a way that nerfing never could.
I've always found that a fifth level anything is more powerful than a first level anything else.
In general that's true, but there are some gross exaggerations . For instance, a 5th level sorcerer with 8 cha vs. a 1st level Barbarian, I think is at least 50-50 odds.
In general that's true, but there are some gross exaggerations . For instance, a 5th level sorcerer with 8 cha vs. a 1st level Barbarian, I think is at least 50-50 odds.
Well, sure, and a 20th level character who can take no actions will eventually die to a 1st level barbarian. We're assuming everyone has reasonably usable builds.
I know people, I game with people who have said the following:
"Warmages? Absolutely not. I read you can cast in full-plate armor with them. They're not allowed in my game."
"Warlocks? They get all of their abilities at will?! That's ridiculously overpowered!"
"Spellthieves don't need a primary casting stat to cast their stolen spells. That's just munchkin powergamers trying to get something for nothing!"
Frankly, I'm sick of the O term itself.
Just wanted to say this is one thing you forgot in your flow chart. The DM doesn't like the flavor of the non-core class/PrC class. They then attribute not allowing the class by dropping the O-bomb on the player.
However, with due respect, anything non-core is literally at the DM's discretion as far as whether or not it should be in their game.
So, people not allowing all the non-core stuff you reference in your post due to 'overpowered' is still their choice, because it could well be overpowered in their campaign.
I do strongly agree with that most issues on the boards in general (not just O-bomb complaints) can be worked out by talking with the rest of your group much more easily than following some of the ridiculous advice found here.
Yet, it is reasonable for someone to post seeking advice on a topic - the problem is when people already decide something for themselves, post about it here in an open forum, and then proceed to debate with anyone who refutes the idea that they've already decided upon for themselves. I guess the bottom line is that this isn't a repository for complaints about what's not working in your game and that if you're not willing to take advice or constructive criticism, then you probably shouldn't post in an open forum.
Good article.
OTOH, you could set up a few hypothetical scenarios to test a class out, or if it's not too unusual you could compare it to similar classes and try to make a good guestimate. It helps to have a good understanding of game mechanics too, but even if you don't you could try sticking the character in some scenarios. It also really helps to understand probability in these scenarios, but even if not you could roll things out instead. Just an opinion -- I dunno how well this would work in play since, well, I haven't tried it. Regardless you still need some kind of solution, and I think play-testing often isn't it.
Really, you've summed up a lot, a lot, a lot of good points, in an easy to read and understand format. I'm quite impressed. Good work.
for you, and I hope more people on these boards start to follow your advice.And it also runs the other way, the DM shouldn't have to use kid gloves because the party chose weak classes and weak feats. They shouldn't need to custom build encounters to make sure that a class can be useable in that situation.
I will agree with you, to a point. However, you do seem to be willing to ignore the fact that there are things that are, in fact, overpowered. Even if a player never takes advantage of it, it's overpowered. It's not a problem if a player never takes advantage of it, but if the DM recognizes it it should be looked at.
It's the superfriends principle. On the one hand, you have pre-crisis superman, and on the other hand you have Aquaman. How on earth can you justify these people on the same team as equals as far as story is concerned?
This is where you get the superfriends silliness like kryptonite ball and chains and villains that felt the need to attack from the ocean constantly.
So, in game you end up with the likes of "Wow, another golem attack. I guess they want the fighter to feel good today.
Most of the article above is pretty good, but don't knock the meta-discussion. Useful information has come out of that.
There are many things in D&D books that are not balanced. If you're not sure, asking around on the boards would seem a good way to get the benefit of other peoples' playtesting before you allow it into your own game. Because once it's in play, it's much harder to fix than before you allow it. "We agreed that your fast healing has to go so ... uh ... your god dies and no longer provides it."
Just wanted to say this is one thing you forgot in your flow chart. The DM doesn't like the flavor of the non-core class/PrC class. They then attribute not allowing the class by dropping the O-bomb on the player.
However, with due respect, anything non-core is literally at the DM's discretion as far as whether or not it should be in their game.
I agree, my DM asks all of us that game with him to tell him what we plan on using and he oks it. There are usually some things he does or doesn't want, usually more race than class, except for psionics. His psionics issue has nothing to do with being "overpowered", just bad experience with a jerk of a player using it once.
I spent roughly 40% of the starting gold on items that didn't much affect combat, i.e. magic horseshoes of the zephyr. The other four players all spent all possible gold on combat affecting magic items (armor, bracers, weapons, natural armor and deflection items, etc.).
One of those players supposedly rolled a character with 2 18's in his scores and ended up making him a Drow 3rd level wiz/3rd level Alienist with a (pseudonatural) dire weasel for a familiar (the DM liked Drow, and there were lots of house rules that showed it.). After 4 or 5 game sessions, guess who was accused by that player of having mini-maxed and playing an overpowered class.
I've been accused of minmaxing for taking a bane weapon vs. outsiders over a bane weapon vs. plants. This came from a fighter who wanted to trade any weapon with an ability for one with just more plusses, cause anything else was 'too complicated' and 'slowed down play'.
I guess what I'm saying is, after a few experiences like these, my different way to deal with (my) overpowered classes is to say "bite me", UNLESS I'm convinced the other person actually has some rational basis for the judgment. I've actually seen several posters here who I would be proud to have as DMs on that basis, and who's judgment I would respect most meekly (including the originator).
... and all I can say is this is exactly what every DM should be doing. However, I'll add one point:
A DM should own or make the player own any material allowed in the game, and KNOW the material!
Even though I have never DM'd before in my life, I've had the experience of playing with a few wonderful DMs (one of which had been playing for 20+ years), and they taught me the above rule that helps with everything in a related system.
If you know you have a Min/Max'ing Warblade in your group, and you fear he'll outshine both the Fighter and Paladin in the group, then don't allow him to execute his ToB Tactical Feat Maneuvers every other round. Make the enemies Disarm him (or more maliciously, Sunder his weapon) and allow only for weapons not from his "preferred" Schools. Throw a large number of Greater Image or Mirror Image decoys to blow maneuvers on the minute he walks through the door, before the casters have time to recognize them... and by all means, find similar methods to confound any other class.
PLEASE note, this does not mean you should maliciously confound the player at every given opportunity. Spread this around to all players of the course of a session, adventure, and campaign. Everyone should have at least one encounter in which they feel crippled and have to rely on their party members, the same as everyone should have at least one battle in which they shine and the party relies on them.
Some classes are obviously more geared to trapfinding and skill-related dungeon/terrain interaction. Some are more geared towards diplomatic skills and/or spells. Some have no other use but to run in and make things bleed, and some have no use but to keep things from bleeding. Many classes are a combination of these things. The most important thing is to know the allowed materials and play accordingly.
The reason I allow 10 books I've never actually played from into my campaign? Because I own them and I've learned them in my spare time, either to help fellow players in past sessions or design PCs and NPCs for myself. I don't need to have played a SoulKnife 5 / Soulbow 10 / Illumine Mind 9 / Pyrokineticist 1 to know that they're really good at destroying undead from ranged, utilizing fire weaknesses, and are deceptively "disarmed" most the time... nor do I need to have played them to know that a strong enough Wizard or Psion with a "Null Field" spell can make them almost entirely useless in a heartbeat. Want to cripple a character like this quickly? Charm Monster & command "Don't manifest weaponry."
Magic Item Compendium was released little more than a month ago. When I saw it included weapon abilities that could allow a Rogue to have a +1 or +2 Bonus weapon at 8th level that he could use to deal non-lethal Sneak Attack damage and full lethal damage SA to Undead, I wet myself with joy as I fondly remembered an undead campaign run with a past DM where there was only one battle in a year-long campaign where I could reliably Sneak Attack due to these things not being allowed. I didn't reach for the Nerf Bat. I didn't scream Munchkin. I didn't disallow an ability, set of abilities, or the entire book. Some DM's would. But I know that if a Rogue has a weapon that allows him to do all those things, a well-placed Grapple puts the Rogue in his place while my Zombie Rogues relentlessly "do unto others."
It's all in knowing the mechanics.
-Geregald
I never forbid my players to read anything. I just don't point them to where good stuff can be found and don't press my many books on them. If they want to find a cool PrC, they can ask me what I would think is appropriate, or they can buy some books themselves.
I completely disagree with the OP. An experienced DM (or player) should of course be able to tell by reading a class whether it's overpowered, underpowered, or balanced. It's not usually that hard to tell, except in borderline cases. If a class gives you d12 HD, good BAB, all armor and weapons, fast healing 10, and quickened true strike at will starting at first level - why would you need to playtest that in order to know it's too good?
OK, I understand where you're coming from on this, but as you know few classes are this extreme.
How would a d8 HD, good BAB, all weapon class which has casting roughly equivalent to 3/4 cleric spells sound. just on your first impression?
Basically, if you trade full casting and 3/4 BAB for 3/4 casting and full BAB is is a overpowered, balanced, or underpowered class.
I completely disagree with the OP. An experienced DM (or player) should of course be able to tell by reading a class whether it's overpowered, underpowered, or balanced. It's not usually that hard to tell, except in borderline cases. If a class gives you d12 HD, good BAB, all armor and weapons, fast healing 10, and quickened true strike at will starting at first level - why would you need to playtest that in order to know it's too good?
You're oversimplifying it, Kinem. The fact of the matter is, no such class exists, and no class that stands out quite THAT blatantly exists. Sure, some stand out more than others, but there's nothing to that degree. Some would argue the Warblade, of course, and while I haven't seen one in game... on paper it stands out to me as "potentially outshining the Fighter, so long as it's made by someone who knows what they're doing," not "OMGZ every warblade beats every fighter ever." As I said earlier, the guys who pick Fighters in my group tend to create powerful characters. Would they create powerful Warblades too? Probably, and they've made powerful Rangers, Paladins, Barbarians, Swashbuckler/Fighters (a combo of TWO oft-called-underpowered classes), and so on and so forth. A lot, a lot, a lot of things come down to who's building the character and to what end. (Which is not to say the Warblade and Fighter are equally balanced. I'm merely saying that nothing stands out to that extreme degree on paper, not even the things people often mention. Heck, even the Cleric doesn't stand out on paper, at least to me. If anything a Cleric stands out to me as "beats most melee classes for one fight, but can't keep himself buffed all day." Persistent Spell notwithstanding, it hasn't come up yet in my games.)
A big ditto to everyone saying that you need to know the books. This may seem rather nerdy of me, even for these boards, but I actually take time to go through and reread all the books (and I make sure to borrow any PC-owned books and read them at least once). If I've got a Shadowcaster in my group, you can bet I've read Tome of Magic once, read it again just for the crunchy bits, and reread the Shadow Magic chapter's crunch at least another two times. I have a player playing an Ardent and I've read that class, that class, all the mantles twice and the powers from the mantles that that player has chosen repeatedly.
I've heard so many bad stories, especially involving psionics, about a DM allowing it and then having his game hosed because the player abused it. Or maybe the player just misunderstood a key sentence, perhaps it was an innocent mistake (less common, though). It's so so very important for DM's to know the material in their game, backwards and forwards.
There's my
. I hope this thread keeps going, we've got some good ideas running here.One reason stuff gets called the O Word is that people insist on comparing any class that happens to keep a sword on its person to the fighter.