We all know that Fighter types rule the low levels and Caster types rule the high ones (and that after epic it all boils down to initiative). Even on low levels, the right spell/feat/race selection can prove downright deadly. This trend DOES NOT change with the higher levels (and some builds shine late while others shine really, really early).
This alone should be reason to convince them -- even without the added options from books outside of core (the big three, not including anything else), casters are going to ruin your day. On the other hand, D&D without magic gets dull real quickly. Even on so-called 'low magic', casters will still own the melee's ass (if not moreso, because magical item availability tends not to hurt casters anyway).
But apparently, they need more arguments. So I came up with an idea.
They seem to assume that it's the addition of options that really unbalances the game. Therefore, the game is theoretically balanced with the "Big Three", when we know they're not. But for the sake of humoring them, let's assume that, if books had a "Brokenness Factor" (hereafter referred to as BeeF), the Big Three have a BeeF of 0. The scale goes from -10 to 10, where -10 equates to "helps bring a lot of balance to the game" (and therefore will hardly if ever see use) and 10 means "breaks the game with its simple addition to the table".
For the record, for them, both the Spell Compendium and the Tome of Battle have a BeeF of 10.
I will divide the books into cathegories, as such:
The Big Three: Comprised of the PHB, DMG, and MM1.
The Complete Series: Self-explanatory... any book in the Complete Series.
The Psionics: At present, Complete Psionics and Expanded Psionics Handbook.
The Core Additions: Includes the PHB2, Unearthed Arcana, Deities and Demigods, Manual of the Planes, Planar Handbook, and the Epic Level Handbook.
Beastiaries: Any book which focuses on monsters.
The "Environment" Series: Sandstorm, Frostburn, Stormwrack, and the like.
The Species Series: Includes books such as Libris Mortis and Lords of Madness, along with any "Races of" books.
Forgotten Realms: Any book directly related to Forgotten Realms and its expansion, including the Campaign Setting itself.
Eberron: Like Forgotten Realms, but pertaining to Eberron.
The Morality books: Book of Exalted Deeds and Book of Vile Darkness.
Heroes of Horror: it gets its own entry because it is more about a campaign style, but it also offers player options, and it doesn't fit in with the "Environment" Series.
The Miniature Handbook: it gets an entry all its own, because it's just that unique, and it doesn't fit anywhere else.
Anyway. Please help me collect arguments to help convince them that D&D is broken beyond belief... and that we should ACCEPT that fact and move on. (I will already be directing them to the Optimization Gospels, but I fear it's not enough...)
my advice: anytime you want someone to stop arguing with you about something, especially if it dosent really matter. Follow the following steps:
1) shut up
2) repeat #1 untill argument goes away
I hope this helps
Candle of Invocation shenanigans are in the DMG+MM.
I mean, those two things alone ...
Even on so-called 'low magic', casters will still own the melee's ass (if not moreso, because magical item availability tends not to hurt casters anyway).
The relative power of casters goes WAY up in so-called "low magic games", in my experience. Most of the time, this just means that you can't buy magic items, which screws the non-casters over about 10x more than the casters. They can get all of the crap they need from spells.
You're going about this entirely the wrong way. All you need to do is show them that Core is utterly unbalanced, at multiple levels. This isn't that difficult to do.
For example, at level 7 casters can Call a Nightmare and get Etherealness and Astral Projection at will, and things go straight to hell if they choose to abuse this.
Clerics animating 20 HD zombies/skeletons at level 5 is pretty tough, too, especially if there is a wizard around to take control of multiple ones at once via Command Undead. How good is it for balance when the party is walking around with ten 20 HD undead to do their fighting for them?
Or you could do a gazillion damage with Shrink Item boulders, or Explosive Rune bombs, etc.
Or how about we start playing Wheel of Genie?
This stuff should go alot further towards proving your point than arguing about which splat books are the worst.
Some of the most powerful spells in the game are in the player's handbook (polymorph, POA, shapechange, timestop, wish, miracle, etc. etc. etc.).
Candle of Invocation shenanigans are in the DMG+MM.
I mean, those two things alone ...
Even if you don't count the obviously broken things, wizards have the capabilities to shut down combat, starting as early as level 1. Druids and clerics take over the melee role too. I'm really not understanding the position here.
In my Living campaign, I posted such a list, if you want it for reference: www.livingplanar.com (links to the Yahoo group, look in the files section for the LPCS).
I disagree with your thesis. D&D is fixable -- you just need to go through each book and fix or ban the broken stuff.
Neither DM I game with is that patient. I shall look into the link.
And how do they handle caster shenanigans from the player's handbook? Do they claim the ToB classes are more powerful than the druid?
They acknowledge casters rule, but don't do squat about it (asides from banning Spell Compendium). And yes, they argue ToB classes are "too powerful" because they have "at will" abilities, and that X build can deal 900 damage in a round, and so on and forth.
The relative power of casters goes WAY up in so-called "low magic games", in my experience. Most of the time, this just means that you can't buy magic items, which screws the non-casters over about 10x more than the casters. They can get all of the crap they need from spells.
Exactly.
You're going about this entirely the wrong way. All you need to do is show them that Core is utterly unbalanced, at multiple levels. This isn't that difficult to do.
I fear they already know. Their logic is that, since Core is unbalanced, if we add more brokenness to it, things just don't work!
Clerics animating 20 HD zombies/skeletons at level 5 is pretty tough, too, especially if there is a wizard around to take control of multiple ones at once via Command Undead. How good is it for balance when the party is walking around with ten 20 HD undead to do their fighting for them?
Or you could do a gazillion damage with Shrink Item boulders, or Explosive Rune bombs, etc.
Or how about we start playing Wheel of Genie?
This stuff should go alot further towards proving your point than arguing about which splat books are the worst.
I do feel that evaluating BeeF could go a good ways towards pointing out how wrong they are, though. It's an idea, anyway.
What would you want us to do? Rank books in a more understandable way? We would have to come up with a specific, mathematic understanding of what unbalanced is, and come up with specific examples of that, on a book per book basis, and I don't think ANY book would really be spared...
The fact of the matter is, the CR system doesn't WORK. The idea that a party of four should contribute equally to ALL encounters doesn't work. I mean, if you wanted to, one could make a party where all the characters are equally powerful, and one role is the "meleeist", one role is the "divine caster, buffer, healer", one role is the "skills, traps, and one-target damage", one role is "battlefield control and arcanist", but to do that in a way that is balanced where everyone can contribute equally to all encounters, AND where "classic" CR-appropriate encounters are interesting and expend roughly the "expected" amount of resources REQUIRES a very specific understanding of the rules and optimizing to that end!
So, again what do you want us to do? Rate books on a more mathematically accurate understanding of balance? Well, I would say the one of the most unbalanced book is Serpent Kingdoms... and whichever Eberron book has the Planar Shepherd.
I disagree with your thesis. D&D is fixable -- you just need to go through each book and fix or ban the broken stuff. Once you do that, there's still a difference between optimized and non-optimized, but the difference isn't as silly as when "optimized" includes things like shapechange and shrink item.
In my Living campaign, I posted such a list, if you want it for reference: www.livingplanar.com (links to the Yahoo group, look in the files section for the LPCS).
Based on a flawed assumption.
Dnd as currently written, is not, and cannot be balanced for one very simple reason.
The ability to play a multitude of types of dnd (Ranging from survival horror, to dungeon crashing, military campaigns, social tomfoolery, colonization, etc) produces elements that are imbalanced when used in types of games not designed for those elements.
For example. Dm A wants to play a "epic journey" campaign which is different than the "epic challenge" campaign, immediately you run into massive balance problems as early as 4th level, possibly as early as 1st. more specifically, any spells or class features that enhance travel and, more specifically the ability to move past random encounters and speed the journey along faster than the dm's vision of the story become unbalanced. Druids on dire bats, or rangers with handle animal wind up ruining the story about a dangerous journey. While on the other hand an "Epic Challenge" game often requires rapid transport that avoids "trash" encounters to speed the characters to the villain of the story to save the world.
A harsh survival game in a desert requires the removal of spells like create food and water to maintain verisimilitude making it "unbalanced" for that game type.
Dnd can only be balanced if it is designed from the ground up to support one playstyle, one game type from level 0 to level 20+, however in doing so the game is no longer able to support any playstyle other than the hardwired mandated style.
Wait, do they allow the overpowered stuff from the player's handbook like polymorph to start with? I really can't see how the game works enough to play it that's the case.
Yes. One of our DMs almost had a fit when I told him my character would be using Shapechange (waaaaaaaaaaaay into the 19th level... he's a Sublime Chord) to change into a Firre Eladrin and use Lyric Spell for unlimited spell usage.
The fact of the matter is, I've got two DMs in separate campaigns right now. One of them doesn't know exactly how to optimize or how to make things challenging -- he actually tossed 10-13 guys (including a player of around 11th level) up against me and another player (as well as his cohorts... guy took the Leadership feat) to get the other player's character killed. Thing is, about 5 or 6 of them were 6th-level sorcerers -- their target was a FRIGGIN' PALADIN! They could probably have done the job with half those numbers. The Paladin made a valiant struggle (I was caught earlier... a silenced Bard is a dead Bard, though mine just got captured), but wound up dead.
The Paladin's player is actually the other DM. This one is pretty damn good at optimizing, by contrast. Whenever he says, "This guy looks like a powerful mage", we grit our teeth in fear. If campaigns had difficulty levels, his would range from "Normal" (and "Normal" is actually pretty hard) to "Butt-Raped by a Clown with AIDS". He seems to believe D&D is fixable (I actually asked him if he didn't think anyone tried it before. His reply: "I'm not anyone".
). The guy even crunched his own system together, which he's remodeled at least four times since, due to problems he found in it. Usually, he tends to relax the rules a little bit and give our characters special abilities or special magic items. However, he tends to restrict certain classes or builds.what role playing games are "balanced"?
what role playing games are "balanced"?
NONE!
Silly, I know. But so true!
And yet they can't just accept D&D's brokenness... they feel like they have to make it balanced for it to be playable.
it is quite the conundrum
Have you just tried discussing this with the other players/dm and explaining to them that the base assumptions of the game are flawed along with about a fifth of the things found in the phb?
it's not tough to understand
Okay, it boils down to this. Some of the people I play with are adamant that D&D balance is "fixable". They can't seem to get it on their heads that whenever a character is optimized, the game breaks irredeemably -- and even when it's not, that there's still no balance!
Actual optimization is not exploiting loopholes. Thats just stupid. Even khan admitted pun pun is a thought exercise.
You seem to have forgotten that anything you can use is fair play for the DM. If your DM wanted to try to be funny i would have to say, congrats on just screwing yourself
Actual optimization is not exploiting loopholes. Thats just stupid. Even khan admitted pun pun is a thought exercise.
You seem to have forgotten that anything you can use is fair play for the DM. If your DM wanted to try to be funny i would have to say, congrats on just screwing yourself
issues:
1. in screwing yourself, you tend to also ruin the fun for the rest of the party
2. even without (or especially) optimizing your character using books or using "loopholes", there is no balance between the classes.
issues:
1. in screwing yourself, you tend to also ruin the fun for the rest of the party
Given that D&D is a social game, then said "optimizer" would find him/herself either *not* invited back or face the rest of the players in explaining what the hell was he trying to do spoiling *their* fun
2. even without (or especially) optimizing your character using books or using "loopholes", there is no balance between the classes.
The distance between the classes depend on
i) the level
ii) the player
Pit the same level of player experience between the classes and you'll find novices have great ease in using the non-spellcasting classes while the novice spellcasters get killed easily.
Reverse it and you'll find that the experienced spellcasters are having the easier time than the experienced fighters.
*But* the distance is not uncoverable by the DM unless he's also a novice
NONE!
Silly, I know. But so true!
And yet they can't just accept D&D's brokenness... they feel like they have to make it balanced for it to be playable.
That's not true. Wushu is perfectly balanced (because it's so rules light).
There are plenty of other games that are much better balanced than D&D, which is ridiculously broken. It's broken in so many ways I can't even count them. It doesn't just have some characters that are better than others, it has the Monk and the Druid in the same book, and multiple infinite loops in the core books as well.
Based on a flawed assumption.
Dnd as currently written, is not, and cannot be balanced for one very simple reason.
The ability to play a multitude of types of dnd (Ranging from survival horror, to dungeon crashing, military campaigns, social tomfoolery, colonization, etc) produces elements that are imbalanced when used in types of games not designed for those elements.
That's not what I'm talking about, really. You're using it in the sense that balanced is homogenous, and unbalanced means people can do things (like bypass encounters) they "shouldn't".
Personally, I only reserve the "broken" epithet for things which are grossly out of line with things of equal level. A feat that adds +20 damage to melee attacks is balanced... for a 20th level character, but is grossly unbalanced for a 1st level character.
And you always have to look at the worst case example to determine if something is balanced... PAO is balanced if it is only used to replicate those other spells. It's grossly unbalanced when it lets you turn colossal boulders into great gold wyrms for four hours at a time, especially when you compare it with an equivalent spell, Summon Monster VIII.
(So, in LP, PAO can only be used to replicate the other spells.)
The one is that the DM should be able to create a consistent game world allowing his desired story. However, I advocate here to rather change the story to the game world, rather than whining on about the game world breaking due to abilities that circumvent certain situations. Good DMs will create a game world that includes the necessity to teleport, fly, read minds, and kill-switch certain encounters. Bad DMs will try to railroad a story circumventing these abilities. You see the same issues with writers of crappy TV-series, for instance. Take Heroes, for instance. The writers obviously included the character's powers as gimmicks for a few cool moments, instead of allowing them to actually USE their abilities to drive the story. The story felt rail-roaded from the get-go. Almost every critical ep had a scene where characters did not use their powers in even sub-optimal ways, even when they were clearly previously shown to be able to do this.
Even a good gameworld can break when abilities allow infinite combos, allow an individual to overcome the base economy of the world, or give him abilities that would enable him to immediately take over the world.
The other aspect of balance is group balance - and IMHO it's more important, since a good DM should be able to cope with world balance. Group balance is something that players have to work out amongst themselves, with the DM as a moderator. However, the basic concept of D&D already precludes that certain characters will be stronger than others. I advocate self-restriction in this case, in the way that rather than disallowing a certain ability, it is much better to allow an optimiser his fun as well, but ask him to self-restrict use of his ability only to critical moments.
Now unfortunately, using the material in the books, even just the main three, it has been repeatedly shown than no game balance exists in either sense, without either banning certain things or self-restricting the use of them.
Open your PHB and go to the spells section. Look up the two spells Miracle and Wish.
Granted, these aren't the only broken spells in that book and they're not strictly the worst offenders because of the XP cost involved, but they are prime examples of the premise of the game: Spellcasters make the rules, everyone else plays the game. A system where half the characters can basically ignore the rules, even in a limited fashion, will never be fixable unless you make it so that either everyone can ignore the rules in a limited fashion or nobody can.
It isn't perfectly balanced in all aspects. Better would be good. Perfect balance is unnecessary (and really, long term economically stupid).
Some of the most powerful spells in the game are in the player's handbook (polymorph, POA, shapechange, timestop, wish, miracle, etc. etc. etc.).
Candle of Invocation shenanigans are in the DMG+MM.
I mean, those two things alone ...
Round and round again...
Here's the definitive answer to this old chestnut. Core has some balance issues, but they are limitied enough in scope that most DMs already know about the issues and can easily nerf/ban/tag the offending exploits while keeping the houserules to a minimum. You've listed the biggest offenders in what, two lines? Dealing with Core alone is a lot different from dealing with someone who skims the top 1% cream off of umpteen sourcebooks and builds a character from that.
In order for this old CO chestnut to mean anything, you first have to find someone who finds Sourcebook X to be "unbalanced" and ALSO claims that Core is not unbalanced without any tweaks. I have not met such a person.
That being said, in order to find the BeeF of different sourcebooks, I would recomment that you look at two things -- the rough percentage of borked material, and the degree of borked that the borked material is.
- Ron ^*^
It might seem as a default "this isn't science" argument, but I believe that you need to define what you mean in your initial hypothesis (DnD is fundamentally broken).
What is DnD in this regard?
Is it the RAW, the RAI, the overall game mechanic, does it include house-rules? how many?
What is broken?
Should it be measured against a "power median intended by the designers", against function (if the wiz can do what the fighter can do better, it is broken), or something completely different.
What is fundamental?
(a bit of a sum-up of the two above)
how do you define something as fundamental? is it when something _can_ be broken? Or when it _might_ be broken?
I know it is a cheap shot, but it should make the debate more clear-cut.
Cheers
Anders
Round and round again...
Here's the definitive answer to this old chestnut. Core has some balance issues, but they are limitied enough in scope that most DMs already know about the issues and can easily nerf/ban/tag the offending exploits while keeping the houserules to a minimum. You've listed the biggest offenders in what, two lines? Dealing with Core alone is a lot different from dealing with someone who skims the top 1% cream off of umpteen sourcebooks and builds a character from that.
In order for this old CO chestnut to mean anything, you first have to find someone who finds Sourcebook X to be "unbalanced" and ALSO claims that Core is not unbalanced without any tweaks. I have not met such a person.
That being said, in order to find the BeeF of different sourcebooks, I would recomment that you look at two things -- the rough percentage of borked material, and the degree of borked that the borked material is.
- Ron ^*^
My point was is that core (as has been mentioned) has some of the most broken stuff in the game.
...yeah, skipping all of the arguments about "broken" or "not broken," because everyone knows the issues, and probably doesn't need to hear more about it...
I'm going to go exact opposite of the OP's group, and put ToB as a -9 (-10 if you take out Jade Pheonix). It is a cheap book, which I don't allow, personally.
But, as far as this so called "balance" goes, ToB makes fighter types more "balanced" against casters at anything but very low levels (where fighters are about balanced anyway). That's right- to get balance from Core, you need to add broken, not take away.
...okay, I lied. PHII gets a -10 for its high level fighter feats, and for the true balancing factor: premade characters. If you want to be balanced, have a bunch of completely non optimized characters made by someone who has no clue what the player wants.
Then watch as your party jumps off a cliff.
I question your definition of "Fundamentally broken" - so I believe those you play with are correct.
D&D is played with a DM - there is a reason for this.
I would agree with "Good - but with imperfections"
I question your definition of "Fundamentally broken" - so I believe those you play with are correct.
Riiiiiiiiiight.
I would agree with "Good - but with imperfections"
Let's put this another way. We all play D&D on a basic assumption of everyone enjoying medieval fantasy. Otherwise we'd play Vampire, or something like that. The variety of roles is one of the things that makes D&D interesting -- and, with enough effort, one can create almost any kind of character archetype he/she wants.
However, D&D is fundamentally broken in that, while most people assume the game is supposed to be balanced class-wise, we all quickly come to realize it's not. And then we can debate all day long about whether it's fixable or not.
The obvious answer is "no", but people tend to resist the idea that something they enjoy is fundamentally flawed. I have come to accept the fact that casters make the rules and everyone else plays the game -- my playmates haven't.
I'm going to go exact opposite of the OP's group, and put ToB as a -9 (-10 if you take out Jade Pheonix). It is a cheap book, which I don't allow, personally.
I likewise agree with that. But it's an almost -necessary- book if anyone is going to play a melee type at high levels...
But, as far as this so called "balance" goes, ToB makes fighter types more "balanced" against casters at anything but very low levels (where fighters are about balanced anyway). That's right- to get balance from Core, you need to add broken, not take away.
...okay, I lied. PHII gets a -10 for its high level fighter feats, and for the true balancing factor: premade characters. If you want to be balanced, have a bunch of completely non optimized characters made by someone who has no clue what the player wants.
Then watch as your party jumps off a cliff.
Are you a follower of the Optimization Gospels? Cuz so am I! :P Seriously though...
Yes, I would laugh for hours on end if we took premade characters.
Ok, this is the simplest way of describing how D&D is fundamentally broken.
Open your PHB and go to the spells section. Look up the two spells Miracle and Wish.
Granted, these aren't the only broken spells in that book and they're not strictly the worst offenders because of the XP cost involved, but they are prime examples of the premise of the game: Spellcasters make the rules, everyone else plays the game. A system where half the characters can basically ignore the rules, even in a limited fashion, will never be fixable unless you make it so that either everyone can ignore the rules in a limited fashion or nobody can.
Yes, but then they'll claim that by removing both spells, balance is MAGICALLY RESTORED.
The other aspect of balance is group balance - and IMHO it's more important, since a good DM should be able to cope with world balance. Group balance is something that players have to work out amongst themselves, with the DM as a moderator. However, the basic concept of D&D already precludes that certain characters will be stronger than others. I advocate self-restriction in this case, in the way that rather than disallowing a certain ability, it is much better to allow an optimiser his fun as well, but ask him to self-restrict use of his ability only to critical moments.
Now unfortunately, using the material in the books, even just the main three, it has been repeatedly shown than no game balance exists in either sense, without either banning certain things or self-restricting the use of them.
I think you've hit an important point here. As an example, I thought of using a Sublime Chord with Shapechange/Firre Eladrin/Lyric Spell trick to grant myself unlimited spells per day. Of course that'd be ridiculously unbalanced -- I'm not arguing that, but I'd obviously restrict myself in its use. It's fun for me, but I don't have to steal EVERYONE ELSE's thunder. (Specially because my assortment of known spells is seriously limited...)
It reminds me of Jedi: Force is obviously one of the most broken things in Star Wars, but if Jedi solve every problem by using The Force, they quickly become darksiders.
*ahem*
...yeah, skipping all of the arguments about "broken" or "not broken," because everyone knows the issues, and probably doesn't need to hear more about it...
I'm going to go exact opposite of the OP's group, and put ToB as a -9 (-10 if you take out Jade Pheonix). It is a cheap book, which I don't allow, personally.
But, as far as this so called "balance" goes, ToB makes fighter types more "balanced" against casters at anything but very low levels (where fighters are about balanced anyway). That's right- to get balance from Core, you need to add broken, not take away.
...okay, I lied. PHII gets a -10 for its high level fighter feats, and for the true balancing factor: premade characters. If you want to be balanced, have a bunch of completely non optimized characters made by someone who has no clue what the player wants.
Then watch as your party jumps off a cliff.
I'd rate PHB2 as being one of the more powerful books, up there with Complete Divine. CELERITY! Does it really need more?
Well, considering the current gap between a core fighter and a core wizard, then the gap between a ToB character and a core spellcaster, isn't that rather...incongruous? I mean, ToB narrows the gap, meaning it makes things closer to being even, meaning it makes the game more balanced. So wouldn't that be a negative score?
As for Spell Compendium, what overwhelming evidence made you decide that this book was a collection of broken? Because I see little that's worse than what you'd find in other sourcebooks.
MAGIC is fundamentally unbalanced. If magic spells are powerful enough to be interesting they cannot possibly be balanced by those without magic.
It therefore follows that the only way to balance things is to give magic to everyone who doesn't already have it already: Magic Item Compendium rated at least -5 BeeF
...and it contains many of the most outrageous items in D&D 3.5.
[oops.. it has Belt of Battle: casters win again ..hmm Ring of Spell Battle sounds interesting what does-WHAT?]
I take it back.
I have no confidence that 4.0 will be any more "balanced" either.
I think you understimate the scale fo the problem.
MAGIC is fundamentally unbalanced. If magic spells are powerful enough to be interesting they cannot possibly be balanced by those without magic.
That's funny. Arcana Evolved, Conan d20, etc. all say you're wrong.
Magic in D&D is unbalanced because a large number of the spells are unbalanced. Not because magic is inevitably unbalanced.
I'm sorry, but I take issue with the fact that right off the bat, as though it were obvious, you say that SpC and ToB have a BeeF of 10. Meaning that the very addition of those books to the table makes the game nigh unplayable.
Well, considering the current gap between a core fighter and a core wizard, then the gap between a ToB character and a core spellcaster, isn't that rather...incongruous? I mean, ToB narrows the gap, meaning it makes things closer to being even, meaning it makes the game more balanced. So wouldn't that be a negative score?
As for Spell Compendium, what overwhelming evidence made you decide that this book was a collection of broken? Because I see little that's worse than what you'd find in other sourcebooks.
You misread. I said that THEY think it has a BeeF of 10.
Magic in D&D is unbalanced because a large number of the spells are unbalanced. Not because magic is inevitably unbalanced.
QTF
QTF
However, D&D is fundamentally broken in that, while most people assume the game is supposed to be balanced class-wise, we all quickly come to realize it's not. And then we can debate all day long about whether it's fixable or not.
And here's your problem.
You're automatically assuming that unbalanced in a vacuum is the same as broken, and by implication irredeemable. Why should this be so? Not only is "unbalanced" not necessarily a problem, even if it were a problem there's absolutely no reason why a competent DM can't keep the game unbroken using Rule 0 and some good judgement (and before you try to tell me that Rule 0 isn't part of DnD rules, go set yourself on fire and jump off something high).
A rule system predicated on the ability for those playing to alter the rules to their preference cannot be in itself broken - it can only be broken if the players make it so. Who gives a damn if you can make infinite loops in core? Do you play with anyone who'd even try to do that in a real game? Some DMs allow characters in their games to become Gods. Does that make the game fundamentally broken?
Optimising characters is cool, and sure the maths behind the exercise might reveal imbalances in the system, but there's a lot more fun to be had in DnD than twinking out characters until they're unstoppable. Sometimes it's fun to play flawed characters.
Here's a challenge for people on these boards who love to optimise: next time you start a campaign, roll up a pure fighter with a Con score of 8 or lower. It'll make your game a lot more interesting, I promise.
If you make him a frontliner he's going to have to invest in ungodly AC (hard to do with straight Fighter but at least Improved Combat Expertise + Elusive Target won't eat all of your Feats -the problem being that the enemy can just ignore him and go after someone who is an actual threat to them.
RPG's try to (in some level) replicate life. Life is not balanced or fair either.
ANY RPG system is only as balanced as the people who play it. If your going to min/max, optimise or even play simple, almost every game on the market today has ways to be broken, WITHIN the rules.
They key is finding a 'level' you and your tablemates are ok with and living within that framework.
For example I am nowhere the optimiser that many on this board are but I do like to dabble in it. Of the 7 people I play D&D with regularly only one is optimization inclined (and he likes to try and pull fast ones on the ref that I have to shoot down regularly) so I voluntarily limit my own optimizing on my character.
I stay within the framework of the other players so I don't over shine them and so everyone can have fun. In that context D&D is balanced. We all get fun from the game, playing class and personality roles we all enjoy, in a shared story that we all find fun and cool.
D&D has a (nebulous) base line it uses to define balance in the sense of how the rules work. I do think the the PHB, for the vast part, typifies this balance perspective (with the caveat that I too think several spells are just too silly to be balanced).
What a great many people fail to realise is that equal escalation does not mean balance. Just because everyone can optimise their various characters and npc's to the point they can eventually do 1000's of damage per swing/spell does NOT mean that everything is balanced.
That said, yes D&D is broken if you play it broken. D&D is not broken if your table all likes the style of play and system of play that the table is using.
Can you use all the D&D supplements and be balanced? Yes. Can you use all the D&D supplements and have it balanced automatically? No. You have to do that for yourself.
With ever greater selection and choice will come more and more unintended/unseen loopholes that will allow more and more wierd combinations that can and will destroy game balance (Pun Pun being the perfect example of this). It is up to each ref and player to realise this and avoid those situations for the good of their game and fellow players.
After all we WANT to play D&D. That is why we buy the system and why we are on this board. But everyone must realise that, as Gygax said, it is a shared experience. That means that we all have a goal to have fun but we all also have a responsibility (yes I know so many hate that word) to our co-players to help them have fun too.
So basically, you AND your friends are both right. And it is not just D&D that is broken in this way. You can achieve near the same thing with any game system with this much material and choice published for it.
You and your buddies just need to agree on what you want from your game and what level/degree of power you wish to have as a standard and then go with that. Make your home rules/table rules to reflect that and then get your game on.
You misread. I said that THEY think it has a BeeF of 10.
Even with my grievous error, I'd still like some information on why they think it's so overpowered.
MAGIC is fundamentally unbalanced. If magic spells are powerful enough to be interesting they cannot possibly be balanced by those without magic.
Tim, I know you played Living Greyahawk -- did you ever try Living Death? Magic in LD was actually very weak, certainly less optimal in terms of damage output to your mundane soldier running around dual wielding navy pistols.
Certainly, magic using PCs could do "unbalanced" stuff like flight or healing, but in combat (and that's what most people care about -- damage output), spells were next to useless.
How did LD do it? Simple: spells took one round per spell level to cast. Maybe my mystic would cast a CLW in combat, if someone desperately needed stabilization, but most of the time he'd blaze away with his big game rifle.
Spell failure happens in Runequest which can be nice too.
But it's not about the damage you can do with magic. Wizards in D&D are much more powerful played without direct damage (as are all casters in fact; Warmages are weak casters in most situations).
If you can (eg) fly and the other guy can't you have a massive advantage; if magic can't make you (eg) fly for meaningful amounts of time (compared to prep/casting-time) then you are seriously pushing the "interesting" barrier.
Magic that takes too long to be useful in a fight isn't interesting in a combat situation. If you're working with D&D spells you switch to entirely buffing and divination but you're definitely pushing the limits of "interesting". You could change the time when spells come into play but Mass Fly is going to trump anything (outdoors) without flight or good ranged attacks at any level.
[incidentally advanced technology is really just another form of magic in this context]
However, D&D is fundamentally broken in that, while most people assume the game is supposed to be balanced class-wise, we all quickly come to realize it's not.
I don't see any problems in the 3 games I run/play each week. Every game has at least 2 optimizers with highly optimized characters.
In the games I run, I use about 19 house rules (with over half of them beefing up the players like full BAB classes are minimum d10 hit dice etc.)
I don't see the brokenness problem you see, and it is likely because the rules interpretations go on the text of the rule but they don't lead down the "dead people can act" path of strict RAW sillyness.
For instance, your Firre would have unlimited bardic music, but could never use an ability that required expending more than 1 bardic music at once (since unlimited doesn't mean a number.)
--->I don't see the brokenness problem you see<---
For instance, your Firre would have unlimited bardic music, but could never use an ability that required expending more than 1 bardic music at once (since unlimited doesn't mean a number.)
You allow shapechange?
I don't see any problems in the 3 games I run/play each week. Every game has at least 2 optimizers with highly optimized characters.
In the games I run, I use about 19 house rules (with over half of them beefing up the players like full BAB classes are minimum d10 hit dice etc.)
I don't see the brokenness problem you see, and it is likely because the rules interpretations go on the text of the rule but they don't lead down the "dead people can act" path of strict RAW sillyness.
For instance, your Firre would have unlimited bardic music, but could never use an ability that required expending more than 1 bardic music at once (since unlimited doesn't mean a number.)
Actually, infinite is a theoretical "Real" number (in that it isn't negative). So, instead, I could actually use Improved Heighten once I hit Epic Level for impossible save-or-whatever spells. Silly, I know, but well within the rules (which are vague enough to allow that to happen in the first place).
Your tablemates and yourself need to realise something: No RPG is balanced. None.
I believe I have already stated as much. I don't believe in any system that actually uses math because it is fundamentally broken.
Even with my grievous error, I'd still like some information on why they think it's so overpowered.
SpC has very unbalanced spells in it, according to them. Their primary examples of this are Ray Deflection and Superior Resistance (and yet one of the DMs whines because Briar Web got nerfed in its SpC reprint).
And they think ToB is unbalanced because 1) the Paladin's DM figured out a combo build that allows you three full rounds of attack on someone and 2) ToB characters of nearly any level will always whoop the Fighter's sorry keister any time of the day. "If they had daily limits, they'd be balanced". See the kind of crap I have to put up with?
And they think ToB is unbalanced because 1) the Paladin's DM figured out a combo build that allows you three full rounds of attack on someone and 2) ToB characters of nearly any level will always whoop the Fighter's sorry keister any time of the day. "If they had daily limits, they'd be balanced". See the kind of crap I have to put up with?
Show them a commoner with a club. Suggest his unlimited attacks are unbalanced. Perhaps they would be balanced with daily limits? Maybe only four or five attacks a day. Then, when they say something about the power level of Mr. Basketweavers attacks, compare ToB maneuvers to some of our old standby spells found in the player's handbook and ask if they see a similarity.
Here's a challenge for people on these boards who love to optimise: next time you start a campaign, roll up a pure fighter with a Con score of 8 or lower. It'll make your game a lot more interesting, I promise.
But don't forget to whine at your DM that the encounters are too hard, and that your character can't run fast enough to win most of them....
I'll correct your quote for you:
... roll up a pure fighter with a Con score of 8 or lower. It'll make your game a lot shorter, I promise.
A rather more fun way would be to simply give the fighter two points of strength every level. At some point he may be able to keep up with polymorph. And then polymorph would no longer be broken.
SpC has very unbalanced spells in it, according to them. Their primary examples of this are Ray Deflection and Superior Resistance (and yet one of the DMs whines because Briar Web got nerfed in its SpC reprint).
And they think ToB is unbalanced because 1) the Paladin's DM figured out a combo build that allows you three full rounds of attack on someone and 2) ToB characters of nearly any level will always whoop the Fighter's sorry keister any time of the day. "If they had daily limits, they'd be balanced". See the kind of crap I have to put up with?
1) Err...Ray Deflection? Superior Resistance? That is not what I was expecting to hear. I was waiting for a Black Blade of Disaster, or Bite of the Werebear. Certainly not Superior Resistance, a 6th level spell that gives a +6 on saves. That's just meh for a spell of that level. Oh, it has uses, yes, but I'd much rather fill that slot with something else. And Ray Deflection, while nice, is situationally useful.
2) Let me guess, Eternal Blade with Time Stands Still. That's fine. It's just...while your average ToB character can do things like that, the wizard has already snatched your own turn from under you, actually stopped time for 2 to 5 rounds (usually five, if he knows what he's doing) and done so many nasty things that by the time you get to act, there's probably a couple dragons leering at you and you've got a bag of Explosive Runes sitting at your feet.
As for the fighter...Well, the poor chap hasn't been up to snuff for a while...Hopefully 4e will help.
Magic that takes too long to be useful in a fight isn't interesting in a combat situation. If you're working with D&D spells you switch to entirely buffing and divination but you're definitely pushing the limits of "interesting". You could change the time when spells come into play but Mass Fly is going to trump anything (outdoors) without flight or good ranged attacks at any level.
I've seen some pretty interesting ways of being able to get off spells (feigning death, twice, being the most memorable) in LD... but you're right, magic becomes more of a utility thing.
Ranged attacks? Guns? Yeah, you probably don't want to be the guy flying in LD... basically, improved invisibility is probably the best combat spell in the game, but at a cost of 4 rounds to cast, and a duration of one round/level, you have to be very precise with when you cast it, and even still, theres the spell failure chance (DC 12 Intelligence check to cast successfully), and a dark powers check of 4% (or higher in a lot of tainted areas).
There were still plenty of magic users in the game, but magic was used more as a tool than a weapon, which I kind of liked.
My point was is that core (as has been mentioned) has some of the most broken stuff in the game.
To which I would agree, and so would your DM if you pointed out your examples to him (if he doesn't know of them already). MY point is that even if he does so, and still wants to ban splatbooks because they are "unbalanced" in his mind, he is not necessarily being inconsistent (as you imply).
- Ron ^*^
1) Err...Ray Deflection? Superior Resistance? That is not what I was expecting to hear. I was waiting for a Black Blade of Disaster, or Bite of the Werebear. Certainly not Superior Resistance, a 6th level spell that gives a +6 on saves. That's just meh for a spell of that level. Oh, it has uses, yes, but I'd much rather fill that slot with something else. And Ray Deflection, while nice, is situationally useful.
2) Let me guess, Eternal Blade with Time Stands Still. That's fine. It's just...while your average ToB character can do things like that, the wizard has already snatched your own turn from under you, actually stopped time for 2 to 5 rounds (usually five, if he knows what he's doing) and done so many nasty things that by the time you get to act, there's probably a couple dragons leering at you and you've got a bag of Explosive Runes sitting at your feet.
As for the fighter...Well, the poor chap hasn't been up to snuff for a while...Hopefully 4e will help.
I hear a lot about Bite of the Werebear in these boards (but not Black Blade of Disaster). His claim is that Ray Deflection beats a whole PrC (specifically Spellshaper) all by itself. Big whoop -- True Seeing beats the whole Illusion school (arguably not shadow spells, because the spell isn't clear whether you make your disbelief save automatically against shadow spells or not), and thus beats any class with a focus on Illusion (which includes, I believe, the Bard, the Wizard Illusion specialist, the duskblade, the Shadowcraft Mage...) and he makes no claims that True Seeing is overpowered.
And yes, his combo involves the Eternal Blade, I just don't recall much in the way of specifics now.
The Wizard combo you speak of, I believe, involves Celerity and Timestop with metamagic rods?
EDIT: Oh, and the reason he has a beef with Superior Resistance is that it lasts 24 hours.
EDIT2:
Then, when they say something about the power level of Mr. Basketweavers attacks, compare ToB maneuvers to some of our old standby spells found in the player's handbook and ask if they see a similarity.
Could you be a little more specific on what you mean by "standby spells"? I'd think you mean spells you can use as an immediate action (which aren't found on the PHB).
Could you be a little more specific on what you mean by "standby spells"? I'd think you mean spells you can use as an immediate action (which aren't found on the PHB).
What I mean are the overpowered spells found in the PHB. Such as:
Alter Self, Polymorph, Shapechange, and Polymorph Any Object of course, Rope Trick, Explosive Runes, Phantom Steed, Fabricate, Shrink Item, Antimagic Field, Contingency (which is in the line of the immediate action spell you mentioned. 'When I cast Feather Fall, do x'), Scrying and friends, Wall of Iron, Planar Bindings, Limited Wish, Gate, Wish, Time Stop, and Astral Projection.
That's just off a quick glance at the wizard spells. I would include teleports too, but people always talk about throwing those things around like those little candies found in pinatas. I haven't seen a campaign survive them, though. Now, sure maybe those won't all destroy your campaign, Rope Trip and Contingency would probably just annoy the dm out of playing.
What I mean are the overpowered spells found in the PHB. Such as:
Alter Self, Polymorph, Shapechange, and Polymorph Any Object of course, Rope Trick, Explosive Runes, Phantom Steed, Fabricate, Shrink Item, Antimagic Field, Contingency (which is in the line of the immediate action spell you mentioned. 'When I cast Feather Fall, do x'), Scrying and friends, Wall of Iron, Planar Bindings, Limited Wish, Gate, Wish, Time Stop, and Astral Projection.
That's just off a quick glance at the wizard spells. I would include teleports too, but people always talk about throwing those things around like those little candies found in pinatas. I haven't seen a campaign survive them, though. Now, sure maybe those won't all destroy your campaign, Rope Trip and Contingency would probably just annoy the dm out of playing.
Huh... I've always heard of Rope Trick being pretty damn strong, though I never figured out why. Contingency gets a pretty damn big nod as an annoying spell, though (Contingency: Revivify anyone?).
EDIT: Nevermind. I just read the description for Rope Trick.
Yes at higher levels, Wizards are the most powerful characters. But powerful doesn't mean invulnerable. I'm sure any number of talented heads around here could optimize up a sword swinger that could eat the typical wizard for brekkies. (Or have a more than even chance.)
At our table when the players start over-optimizing, the DM does too. It can get pretty ridiculous.
What I mean are the overpowered spells found in the PHB. Such as:
Alter Self, Polymorph, Shapechange, and Polymorph Any Object of course, Rope Trick, Explosive Runes, Phantom Steed, Fabricate, Shrink Item, Antimagic Field, Contingency (which is in the line of the immediate action spell you mentioned. 'When I cast Feather Fall, do x'), Scrying and friends, Wall of Iron, Planar Bindings, Limited Wish, Gate, Wish, Time Stop, and Astral Projection.
That's just off a quick glance at the wizard spells. I would include teleports too, but people always talk about throwing those things around like those little candies found in pinatas. I haven't seen a campaign survive them, though. Now, sure maybe those won't all destroy your campaign, Rope Trip and Contingency would probably just annoy the dm out of playing.
But since all those are in the PHB any campaign writer can write his campaign around them. It gets harder with more obscure sources. Any campaign that does not have ways to deal with even PHB spells is obviously poorly written. You may say it's not easy to make a campaign like that, but that's no excuse. If you want to write simpler campaigns write one for a simpler game. This is D&D, not Farms&... uh... Fowls. IMHO campaigns should in fact even require those spells, or reward players for using them intelligently. Take Teleport: Players use it to get around a lot. MAKE them get around a lot. They'll run out of teleports quickly. They could use it to bypass encounters. So what? A bypassed encounter is one that can come back for them, and with a vengeance. Take scrying: Make it as necessary as going to a library to get key information. Take PAO: Reward players for intelligently using it to pass challenges. Take Gate: Sometimes they'll need a heavy hitter to do the dirty work for them, but it'll cost them. Using it to reach other planes isn't problematic at all.
The Planar Allies are not worse, since it's more a deal you can have your finger on. Planar Bindings are problematic, because you just need to beat the critters at a Cha check. There may be issues, there. Remove Efreet from the game if you are overly concerned.
Get rid of the idea that a campaign is a set of tracks to follow. Get creative.
I don't think I understand what you mean by 'balance". Balanced versus what? Other players? the DM? Monsters?
That's the key question. IMHO it's pretty simple as a DM to get your players to stop optimising too much: DON'T make the encounters harder. Harder encounters will just lead to an arms race. You're the one in control, if your players don't want to be challenged, don't challenge them. Focus on the roleplaying aspects, or whatever.
I'm sure any number of talented heads around here could optimize up a sword swinger that could eat the typical wizard for brekkies. (Or have a more than even chance.)
No, that could not happen. Mr. Sharp-pointy-metal-thing cannot defeat a high level wizard. He wouldn't be able to get through one contingency. Core or otherwise. He would never be able to get close enough to do the wizard any harm. It's just not logically consistent with the powers available to the wizard and his requisite high intelligence score.
Any campaign that does not have ways to deal with even PHB spells is obviously poorly written. You may say it's not easy to make a campaign like that, but that's no excuse. If you want to write simpler campaigns write one for a simpler game.
The Planar Allies are not worse, since it's more a deal you can have your finger on. Planar Bindings are problematic, because you just need to beat the critters at a Cha check. There may be issues, there. Remove Efreet from the game if you are overly concerned.
Okay, this makes no sense at all. Any campaign is poorly written if it cannot handle Pun-pun, so you should not allow Pun-pun and just aknowledge that it's poorly written? Is poorly written a desirable attribute?
Ignoring that, what if no one wants to play a game of Dr. Strange vs. Galactus or Goku vs. Frieza? What if they want something closer to... oh, I don't know... fantasy fiction? Where there aren't wizards, clerics, and druids walking around with REAL AND ULTIMATE POWER OVER ALL THINGS CREATED at their disposal. Should they just call D&D the wrong game for them?
No, that could not happen. Mr. Sharp-pointy-metal-thing cannot defeat a high level wizard. He wouldn't be able to get through one contingency. Core or otherwise. He would never be able to get close enough to do the wizard any harm. It's just not logically consistent with the powers available to the wizard and his requisite high intelligence score.
Okay, this makes no sense at all. Any campaign is poorly written if it cannot handle Pun-pun, so you should not allow Pun-pun and just aknowledge that it's poorly written? Is poorly written a desirable attribute?
Ignoring that, what if no one wants to play a game of Dr. Strange vs. Galactus or Goku vs. Frieza? What if they want something closer to... oh, I don't know... fantasy fiction? Where there aren't wizards, clerics, and druids walking around with REAL AND ULTIMATE POWER OVER ALL THINGS CREATED at their disposal. Should they just call D&D the wrong game for them?
Hey, kids!
Audience
WHAT?
You allow shapechange?
Yes, I allow pretty much everything. I don't consider polymorph/shapechange or wild shape broken. We have at least 4 druid/wild shape players in the various games. Two in the same game (one Druid 16th the other MoMF 8th/Warshaper/Druid 5)
Actually, infinite is a theoretical "Real" number (in that it isn't negative). So, instead, I could actually use Improved Heighten once I hit Epic Level for impossible save-or-whatever spells. Silly, I know, but well within the rules (which are vague enough to allow that to happen in the first place).
Using corner case improbable interpretations is what leads to "dead people can act on their turn" being well within the rules. In short, most of the broken things can be found to be using odd or silly interpretations.
Yes, I allow pretty much everything. I don't consider polymorph/shapechange or wild shape broken. We have at least 4 druid/wild shape players in the various games. Two in the same game (one Druid 16th the other MoMF 8th/Warshaper/Druid 5)
Using corner case improbable interpretations is what leads to "dead people can act on their turn" being well within the rules. In short, most of the broken things can be found to be using odd or silly interpretations.
But Shapechange isn't broken. Is Ice Assassin broken? What is broken?
I don't think I understand what you mean by 'balance". Balanced versus what? Other players? the DM? Monsters?
Perhaps all three. A common tactic by the Paladin's DM (from this point on referred to as Makkuramancer, one of his many preferred nicknames) is to have us fight enemies with certain defined characteristics (such as devils/demons or what have you) and measure our character's combat potential. He tends to prefer slapping immunities or resistances to them (or defensive tactics) rather than pumping their offensive strength through the roof (they typically have a few moves which I call "10 out of 10 on the Ouchdammitometer scale") unless they're berserkers of some sort, in which case the massive amounts of HP make them tough to kill anyways. He plays his big bad intelligent monsters like he plays his fighting games, which is to say quite defensively a lot of the time.
Unfortunately, he also abuses the high-level threat tactic very often (that is to say, he uses high-level or equivalent creatures/NPCs to make sure certain things happen). Sure we're free to attack or whatever -- but it's our funeral. He's more conscious of the difference in party roles and tends to work well enough that people don't get outshined.
By contrast, the other DM (hereafter referred to as Nemesis) is REALLY wary of "high" power levels. His most common (whining) argument against anything he sees as "unbalanced" or "broken" (namely anything with relatively high numbers or tactics with no drawbacks) is: (insert squeaky, moaning tone of voice here) "my campaign world is not Disgaea...". Just so you guys get an idea, he BANNED Hats of Disguise in the campaign world because everyone in the party had one and it made infiltrating a nearby church incredibly easy (no one had high spot modifiers, lots of the clerics had no access to True Seeing due to being levels 3-5, and so on). He claimed it was "too powerful and cheap an item and it made our lives too easy". He whines every time he finds out we can overcome certain obstacles with ease (guy nearly had a fit when he saw how easily a character with a good Tumble modifier could move around with no AoOs incurred). The ONLY thing keeping me from nixing his campaign altogether is the fact that I like my character there and the story is interesting... but he's really, really bad at providing us challenges on any level other than social.
Remove all spells. Every spellcaster now only has the healer's spell list.
Is it still broken?
Lets use an extreme example for those that think magic is fundamentally broken.
Remove all spells. Every spellcaster now only has the healer's spell list.
Is it still broken?
Yeah, healer's get foresight and gate. That's one powerful combo. And you know they can spam gate all day, because it doesn't matter if a healer loses exp.
Yeah, healer's get foresight and gate. That's one powerful combo. And you know they can spam gate all day, because it doesn't matter if a healer loses exp.
Now lets replace gate and foresight with meteor swarm and bigby's crushing hand.
Any other broken stuff?
By contrast, the other DM (hereafter referred to as Nemesis) is REALLY wary of "high" power levels. His most common (whining) argument against anything he sees as "unbalanced" or "broken" (namely anything with relatively high numbers or tactics with no drawbacks) is: (insert squeaky, moaning tone of voice here) "my campaign world is not Disgaea...". Just so you guys get an idea, he BANNED Hats of Disguise in the campaign world because everyone in the party had one and it made infiltrating a nearby church incredibly easy
To be fair, certain things in D&D make other parts of D&D pointless. Like how Tumble makes things like Mobility pointless, and Fly makes Jump pointless.
For that DM, I'd experiment with a no-magic campaign and see how it goes, since it's obvious he wants only honest dice rolls to settle things. Come up with a healing surge system or whatever for healing, and see how it goes. That probably suits his style better.
But that doesn't have anything to do with the question of if D&D is fundamentally broken, it's just that he's prejudiced against certain things.
Okay, this makes no sense at all. Any campaign is poorly written if it cannot handle Pun-pun, so you should not allow Pun-pun and just aknowledge that it's poorly written? Is poorly written a desirable attribute?
Ignoring that, what if no one wants to play a game of Dr. Strange vs. Galactus or Goku vs. Frieza? What if they want something closer to... oh, I don't know... fantasy fiction? Where there aren't wizards, clerics, and druids walking around with REAL AND ULTIMATE POWER OVER ALL THINGS CREATED at their disposal. Should they just call D&D the wrong game for them?
All I'm saying is that a well written campaign has no trouble with responsible use of said spells. Remember, I was the one that advocated self-restriction on the part of a player who does not want to break the campaign, and doesn't want to ruin the fun for his fellow players. If, however, the campaign is broken by teleporting from Amn to Waterdeep then it's a stupid campaign, anyway, and more or less deserves to be broken.
If people want to play a different game they should house-rule it. Play E6. Play without magic. Whatever.
Your tablemates and yourself need to realise something: No RPG is balanced. None.
You must be talking about the kind of balance where everything in on a level playing field and, in a vacuum, any one being of a given power level will defeat another being of the same power level 50% of the time. It's true, no RPG is balanced like this because it would be the most incredibly boring RPG ever with no reward for making smart decisions. It would always boil down to "flip a coin, tails I win heads you keep playing."
Far more often you find another kind of balance, one you commonly encounter in a Rock Paper Scissors game. Most RPGs employ this sort of balance (even WoW used to), but D&D isn't one of them. If you injected D&D spellcasters into a rock, paper, scissors game; thowing, say, Cleric, lets you look at what your opponent throws first and then decide whether to throw Rock or Scissors. You can't throw Paper, but if your opponent throws Rock to exploit that you can also throw Rock and just force a draw. You may not win, but you can't really lose, either.
Let's look at the example DM who was worried about Hats of Disguise. The DM figured out a challenging adventure, and the players circumvented it with quick and clever thinking. I see that the adventure was broken, but not the game. Clever thinking on the part of the DM could have salvaged things. While the clerics in question don't have True Seeing, they do have Detect Magic, which can reveal that the party members are under the influence of illusion magic. Even better, they have operational security: codewords and whatnot. In a world where disguise self is a 1st-level spell and alter self a 2nd-level one, Clerics guarding the Holy MacGuffin are probably pretty smart about that kind of thing. So - an adventure broken by poor DM planning and good PC planning.
What about the Arena fight between a ToB character and a Wizard? Wizard wins, unless he's stupid or really unlucky. Is this broken? As an encounter, if the DM brought in the ToB character as a single challenge to a party or single Wizard, then it's a broken encounter, due again to poor planning all around. If I'm a martial character smart enough to get to level 17, I didn't get that way by facing wizards in open combat. I got that way by striking at wizards when they're not looking, or by running away when I'm outgunned.
Rope trick (to answer an earlier question) is considered by some DMs to be "broken" because once you get it to last 8 hours (lesser extend rod and CL 4), you can hop in one and rest without needing to set a watch. Furthermore, you can usually use it for mid-dungeon sleeping sessions, allowing you to recuperate faster. This is important because adventures in D&D are basically big resource management games, built around a 4 encounter / day model, and if the players can get away with 2/day, they can go all out more often, without worrying about consequences.
Of all the ways we've discussed game breakage, I think it's actually the rope trick trick that's the most serious, frankly. That's because it exploits the fundamental model of D&D-as-resource-management-game. In order to "fix" that, you need to either seriously reconsider your encounter model (one big encounter per "day") or change your resource model (replace vancian spellcasting with ... at will and per enounter powers, gasp!) Even the rope trick thing isn't the fault of the spell rope trick, though. At later levels, the party bypasses encounters by flying over them, or uses teleport to go home and rest every two encounters instead of rope tricking.
That's actually an example of the biggest deal in the game: resource management. Whenever a mechanic or spell changes the way you deal with resources, the potential exists to break new encounters. The BBEG usually has 4 or 5 CL on any individual member of the party. He doesn't die because the PCs are pure of heart, he dies because the PCs have four actions to his one. Spells that change that (celerity, time stop, quickened whatever, contingency, imbue familiar with spell ability) attack the resource management issue again, at the cost of needing to rest more often (again, resource management).
Ray Deflection is not broken. It's a good spell, but it's simply the rock to a Spellwarp Sniper's scissors. Someone who casts ray deflection is already wasting a turn to cast a spell that will only (probably) last one encounter, at min/lev. The sniper could either shoot someone else, or attempt to dispel the ray deflection (I'd go with the former over the latter). We cannot fall into the PvP trap. D&D is not world of warcraft, where we have to envision ways for every class to beat every other class, one-on-one (and even WoW doesn't do that, to listen to the anti-warlock whiners ... but I digress).
I don't think it's possible to say the game is broken. You can point to all sorts of encounters and adventures that got broken by clever foresight, planning, or outright exploitation of the rules. But the game isn't really a thing in itself that can be measured in that way.
D&D doesn't stand alone. It isn't some runs-itself game like WoW, where a group of five (Tank, Healer, DPS, DPS, utility) can go in and work on an instance by themselves. It's a co-construction between players and DMs, like any RPG. It's the job of the DM to provide a series of scenarios that will challenge the party, require them to think, plan, and execute in order to overcome those challenges. It's the job of the PCs to do that in an entertaining way, so everyone can have fun.
I think the only thing I can say about D&D is not that it is fundamentally broken, but that it is breakable. It is obviously easy for PCs to bring strategies to encounters both homegrown and published that will take those encounters and turn them into cakewalks. Those breakages either exploit blind spots the designers had in terms of bypass strategies, or they exploit the resource management game.
Either way, it's not possible to assign an absolute brokenness factor to any given book, spell, PrC or whatever. It only exists relative to the game itself, the DMs planning, the rest of the party. Now, it's true that some books, spells, PrCs, etc will dramatically increase the likelihood of such breakage, but that's the nature of any sufficiently-complex system. We play D&D because it's more complex and interesting than, say, rock-scissors-paper. For the same reason people tend to play Bridge more than War.
Anyway, too much text. Sorry.
.... many words ....
+1
Quote:
Originally Posted by pfooti View Post
.... many words ....
+1
Best a lot of words that actually convey a message, than a few words that only make sense to whoever said them. Anyhow.
Let's look at the example DM who was worried about Hats of Disguise. The DM figured out a challenging adventure, and the players circumvented it with quick and clever thinking. I see that the adventure was broken, but not the game. Clever thinking on the part of the DM could have salvaged things. While the clerics in question don't have True Seeing, they do have Detect Magic, which can reveal that the party members are under the influence of illusion magic. Even better, they have operational security: codewords and whatnot. In a world where disguise self is a 1st-level spell and alter self a 2nd-level one, Clerics guarding the Holy MacGuffin are probably pretty smart about that kind of thing. So - an adventure broken by poor DM planning and good PC planning.
They didn't really have a reason to believe they were being invaded or infiltrated (mind you, the kingdom the church was based on was known for its xenophoby), but I suppose operational codewords for the purpose of telling native clergy from "immigrants" would have made sense. Arguably, my bard could have still fooled the clerics by saying something like "I just got here so I don't know the password" if asked (and Glibness would go a long way towards convincing them).
To be fair, certain things in D&D make other parts of D&D pointless. Like how Tumble makes things like Mobility pointless, and Fly makes Jump pointless.
For that DM, I'd experiment with a no-magic campaign and see how it goes, since it's obvious he wants only honest dice rolls to settle things. Come up with a healing surge system or whatever for healing, and see how it goes. That probably suits his style better.
But that doesn't have anything to do with the question of if D&D is fundamentally broken, it's just that he's prejudiced against certain things.
Or spellcasting in general makes sword-slinging pointless. I mean, seriously. Would you rather have a single-target melee peashooter or a long-range grenade launcher? I think the answer is fairly obvious.
The no-magic campaign could sound interesting if it didn't sound so dull... I mean, D&D without magic is like chocolate chip cookies without chocolate!
The no-magic campaign could sound interesting if it didn't sound so dull... I mean, D&D without magic is like chocolate chip cookies without chocolate!
Some people don't like chocolate. And most people like cookies, chips or not.
But Shapechange isn't broken. Is Ice Assassin broken? What is broken?
Just read it in Frostburn, and it isn't broken.
What is broken?
Spell Like Abilities not costing material components/XP. A house rule I use is if a SLA would benefit a PC directly or indirectly, then it has the material component and/or the XP that must be paid as if a spell was cast. No NPC can pay a material component cost or XP cost for a SLA (a PC must pay the cost.)
Just read it in Frostburn, and it isn't broken.
What is broken?
Spell Like Abilities not costing material components/XP. A house rule I use is if a SLA would benefit a PC directly or indirectly, then it has the material component and/or the XP that must be paid as if a spell was cast. No NPC can pay a material component cost or XP cost for a SLA (a PC must pay the cost.)
Sweet, I make fifteen Grumsh Ice Assassins and one Corellon. I make them fight to the death. (Corellon still wins.)
For one thing, the DM can balance 99.9% of everything by just looking at the so called broken rule being used.
Examples
You got +80d6 SA on your octopus? You're facing a zombie, what good does that do you unless the DM placed an NPC to sell you a crystal of true death?
Abusing gate? A 5th level rogue uses a Candle of Invocation to summon a Solar who casts Gate to summon more stuff to fight said party of 17th level people.
Decked out in your epic items you paid with salt? You just got MDJed, ha.
Planning on building Pun-Pun? Well Mega overdeity Nup-Nup's portfoilio is munchkining, his ready action smite kills the kobold, and it is fair to use super gods vs pun-pun.
Abusing gate? A 5th level rogue uses a Candle of Invocation to summon a Solar who casts Gate to summon more stuff to fight said party of 17th level people.
Decked out in your epic items you paid with salt? You just got MDJed, ha.
Planning on building Pun-Pun? Well Mega overdeity Nup-Nup's portfoilio is munchkining, his ready action smite kills the kobold, and it is fair to use super gods vs pun-pun.
Just read it in Frostburn, and it isn't broken.
What is broken?
Spell Like Abilities not costing material components/XP. A house rule I use is if a SLA would benefit a PC directly or indirectly, then it has the material component and/or the XP that must be paid as if a spell was cast. No NPC can pay a material component cost or XP cost for a SLA (a PC must pay the cost.)
Rrrrrrrrrrrrright. Like ridiculously powerful spells with XP/material components are easy to change into SLAs all the time...
Planning on building Pun-Pun? Well Mega overdeity Nup-Nup's portfoilio is munchkining, his ready action smite kills the kobold, and it is fair to use super gods vs pun-pun
Can you explain how this 'works?'
Can you explain how this 'works?'
Duh, by being the DM and cheating.
I guess what should be mentioned is that every DM gets the players he deserves, and vice versa. There may be a bit of rough going in the middle. Don't play with people who hold diametrically opposed views, or are *******s. Plain and simple.
I would never play in a group where the DM decides to rigorously ban stuff I don't agree deserves to be banned. I don't play in groups where house-rules are decided upon without group consensus.
Edit: This post was a mess. Still is. Whatever. Wild mental leap ahead.
Look at it this way: If there were no way to get an XP-free wish, who would EVER cast it? If tomes were not in the books, who would ever have FIVE points of inherent bonus in any ability. WHO MADE THOSE TOMES? They had to pay fricking 25000XP for a +5tome, who is that stupid? I'll tell you who made the tomes: The guy who got free wishes. All you need to do is change the game world a a bit and suddenly it all makes a whole lot more sense.
Duh, by being the DM and cheating.
Aye. No one ever said the DM had to play fair. When he doesn't, though, he often starts getting on the players' nerves...
Can you explain how this 'works?'
Technically, Pun Pun is from Faerun, and Faerun has an overgod, Ao, who is the only entity that can raise or lower gods, so technically Pun-Pun can't exist. But he's kind of a holy grail in CO, so it's best not to mention that to anyone.
Look at it this way: If there were no way to get an XP-free wish, who would EVER cast it? If tomes were not in the books, who would ever have FIVE points of inherent bonus in any ability. WHO MADE THOSE TOMES? They had to pay fricking 25000XP for a +5tome, who is that stupid? I'll tell you who made the tomes: The guy who got free wishes. All you need to do is change the game world a a bit and suddenly it all makes a whole lot more sense.
Nobody, duh, they were randomly rolled as treasure. Isn't that where all magic items come from when you kill huge monsters trapped in 10x10 rooms deep beneath the surface of the oerth, with no visible means of eating or drinking water?
Technically, Pun Pun is from Faerun, and Faerun has an overgod, Ao, who is the only entity that can raise or lower gods, so technically Pun-Pun can't exist. But he's kind of a holy grail in CO, so it's best not to mention that to anyone.
I thought he had moved from Faerun to Rokugan? Plane of shadow or a spelljammer or something... Does Pun-Pun really even need divine ranks to accomplish what he does?
Nobody, duh, they were randomly rolled as treasure. Isn't that where all magic items come from when you kill huge monsters trapped in 10x10 rooms deep beneath the surface of the oerth, with no visible means of eating or drinking water?
And why do I have the feeling this is exactly where 4.0 is moving? I don't want little wormlings dropping suits of armour or even set items like in Diablo II.
Some people don't like chocolate. And most people like cookies, chips or not.
Well...
I LIKE MY CHOCOLATE.
DO NOT MESS WITH MY CHOCOLATE!!!
Technically, Pun Pun is from Faerun, and Faerun has an overgod, Ao, who is the only entity that can raise or lower gods, so technically Pun-Pun can't exist. But he's kind of a holy grail in CO, so it's best not to mention that to anyone.
Except Ao wouldn't really care about Pun-Pun.
I thought he had moved from Faerun to Rokugan? Plane of shadow or a spelljammer or something...
Dude, Pun-Pun spawns in his -own- plane.
Wherever there is a stupidly narrow-sighted DM...
THERE, Pun-Pun shall be.
Rrrrrrrrrrrrright. Like ridiculously powerful spells with XP/material components are easy to change into SLAs all the time...
Wish, Efretti
Wish, Efretti
Ice Assassin Corellons
Wish, Efretti
If it's not you casting, how are you going to apply that?
If it IS you (via Shapechange), you should still be bound to the same limits of use (per round/minute/hour/day/week/month/year or whatever).
If it's not you casting, how are you going to apply that?
If it IS you (via Shapechange), you should still be bound to the same limits of use (per round/minute/hour/day/week/month/year or whatever).
Yeah, balance wise, sure. Logically? How does a spell you cast half a year ago remember you cannot cast the Zodar's Su wish again? (Or what was the critter called?) Effectively there is no logical base to this argument, and I prefer my game worlds to be immersive (i.e. logical), which also means that sometimes balance has to be ignored in favour of logic.
I had exactly this conversation with my DM yesterday. He was even going to suggest shifting backwards and forwards (using Chronotyrin even in one round) to use a daily ability twice, and I had to restrain him into only doing it once per casting of the spell. Yeah, this is going to be one broken campaign.
What I suggest doing: Unbalancing the game by this kind of means only happens when someone uses these abilities to give himself unlimited power. In said campaign, I play a necromancer with only TWO corpse creature undead efreet. So that's six free wishes every day. Now there are people who would say that this is mind-bogglingly broken. Yeah, well, it is, in a way. But IMHO I've found a way to both use those six wishes every day, and also to not really unbalance the game.
The deal is this: Whenever I get a new undead critter it receives the benefits of six or twelve wishes (for inherent bonuses + equipment), depending on its elite-ness. ALL the remaining wishes go into the economy of the little country my PC is running. That's smart, eh? Thanks to that my citizens don't need to pay high taxes and I can still get them the best infrastructure. We have paved roads, parks, nice clean towns, free education for everyone, a 24hour border patrol, no monsters running around freely, and lots of happy citizens. And definitely no temples of Lathander. I find this a very nice way of both using and not using an ability that has the potential of breaking the game. My PC is not running around with unlimited gold and magic items, because he's bound by the laws of his own little country just like everyone else.
So, yeah, while the game is mind-bogglingly broken even with just core, you just have to find a way to un-break it without disallowing everything. Don't think that your DM can do everything better. Think about what the WORLD will do with those abilities. The world isn't filled with just stupid NPCs. Think about it that while your Wizard may have 36 Int, YOU don't, and unfortunately that severely limits how smart your PC really is. If you think you're smarter than that other Wizard over there, who is not played (and limited) by YOU, then think again. He might just get angry if you try to mess with his world. Even without the DM ever hinting at it.
As far as polymorph goes... well that's just like being a druid and wildshaping not really broken. Using spell like abilities from summons well... I really doubt a chaotic evil nightmare is going to use his spell like abilities for you... he can't use his planar travel or teleportation (read the spell). You also still have to communicate with him to use his spell like abilities.
Also there is a huge gray area in terms of rules with many spells. Yeah rangers rock bow and arrow for the win for the first 10 levels.
Magic is countered with magic sadly since an antimagic field is magical in itself. However you have d4s and so it's up the rangers battle prowlness to defeat the mage.
Also combat can take place anywhere and you're not garaunteed to go first every time. You still have to sleep 2 hours and spend 1 hour to prepare if you're a wizard cleric or druid... during that time you are very vulnerable.
sure you can get more hd changing forms and gain hp for a nights rest, but it's not like you have a HEAL spell as a wiz. and clerics can't polymorph themselves.
Clerics have to buff themselves to be almost as good as a fighter.
When you use core books only the balance is alot better. I don't like campaign setting books since I'd rather play WoW then a campaign setting... I think that's just for lazy dms.
Technically DM is god and it's not like you have access to learning every possible spell out there. remember
WIZARDS DON'T GO AROUND SHARING THEIR SPELLS WITH EVERYONE SO WHEN YOU HIT LEVEL 20 YOU WON'T HAVE THE WHOLE LIST KNOWN AND NOT TO MENTION EACH SPELL TAKES UP XX PAGES AND IF YOUR SPELLBOOK GETS STOLEN BY A ROGUE OR SOMETHING YOU'RE INCREDIBLY SCREWED.
:D.
Druids are kind of over powered in all aspects since they can constantly stay in bear form - whatever magical beast form. Dinosaurs DON'T EXIST IN EVERY WORLD SO HOW CAN YOU WILDSHAPE IN SOMETHING THAT YOU HAVEN'T SEEN OR DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT.
~~~
When mixing the rules with roleplaying you get a pretty good balanced game. However 4E will improve the game greatly or so they say.
In any case.
the game is pretty balanced. dm "ugh how is your character wildshaping into a polar bear?" pc "what do you mean it's my ability?" dm "you were born and raised in the forest you haven't even come close to a polar region where you'd find polar bears and you don't have knowledge nature..." pc "ugh..."
things make sense in practice.
~~
if you start messing with genies and effrities and force them to make all kind of wishes... well there are extraplanar creatures who uphold the law throughout the planes... mmm inevitables thing is when inevitables come that's usually a sign someone is going to die. I design the inevitable to be extremely hard either by increasing their #s or giving them equipment and character levels in something after all the inevitable encounter is meant to kill the pc so if it happens that that is good the pc died the inevitable did its job wam bam hope ya had fun. They are not dumb and they know what you do ... it is their job their duty to uphold the law accross the planes. Wishes break the laws of the universe and thus it triggers an inevitable encounter. But yes wishing and miracles provoke crazy people when I roll for encounter oh yeah it's highly probable you ****** someone somewhere off.
~
SRD has rules for Deities. Wish for Kord's prized greatsword handed down to his favorite worshiper who died of old age and was buried in the celestial planes along with his sword... Kord will regulate on your epic wizard.
things make sense in practice.
Last time I used polymorph in a game was at level seven. To turn our pouncing, hasted barbarian into a hydra. That... went over the way I had expected i.e. not at all. Polymorph's not broken, though, right? And getting cleric spellcasting from shapechanging into a solar... well, that's just part of the game... right?
hydras only have 7hd???
They start at five: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/hydra.htm
The seven to which I referred was the level we got polymorph. I suppose, with a scroll, we could have managed it at level five. Pun-pun still puts it to shame. And I'm sure Pun-pun Lite is core too. But, hey, it's in the rules, right?
Well hydras move 20 feet. only melee. do you get the fast healing??? it's strength is not crazy the # of attack is though. However you have to touch the barbarian meaning you're pretty close to the the action. Then you have to take into consideration it's to make a Barbarian do more attacks. Not game breaking.
Do you spring heads when they get sundered?
So what does polymorph do that's so special compared to a druid's wildshape aside from casting it on the dumb fighter?
Besides what would happen if someone dominated your barbarian and made him fight you? Barbarians have ok will while raging I guess you can rely on that.
hopefully 4E won't have 3 pages worth of stuff to read for a single spell. DAMN YOU ALTER SELF!
I wonder if hold person still works on a polymorphed person or if you have to use monster spells.
oh hydras can start at 5 hd and can be scaled to twelve heads for 12 hd so everytime you level up you add a head.
Well hydras move 20 feet. only melee. do you get the fast healing??? it's strength is not crazy the # of attack is though. However you have to touch the barbarian meaning you're pretty close to the the action. Then you have to take into consideration it's to make a Barbarian do more attacks. Not game breaking.
Do you spring heads when they get sundered?
Hydras move twenty feet, true. Hasted hydras do not. Nor do hydras who have had the fly spell cast on them.
As to the springing heads: how would anything ever live long enough to sunder one of your heads? How would any dm ever allow polymorph? Ours certainly didn't after hearing the word 'hydra.'
Hydras move twenty feet, true. Hasted hydras do not. Nor do hydras who have had the fly spell cast on them.
As to the springing heads: how would anything ever live long enough to sunder one of your heads? How would any dm ever allow polymorph? Ours certainly didn't after hearing the word 'hydra.'
Disallowing perfectly valid tactics. Ts ts. Polymorph is a staple D&D spell. I would probably lose faith in a DM that disallows it, and quit his group.
I use a gentleman's agreement when I DM. That is, if the party wizard polymorphs the fighter into a hydra, I'll do the same thing on my end at some point. That is, except that this will be a bigger hydra, since bad guys typically have more CL than the good guys.
Thats not a gentleman's agreement. That's basically blackmail. Of course I would expect the DM to also use Polymorph, and use it myself as a DM. It's in the book. But the way you say it it seems you'll use to effectively beat your players, instead of challenging them. I would use it to give them a challenging encounter at their level of optimisation, if they express a wish to be challenged.
This is just another example of DM hubris.
And look at it this way. After a while the Fighter basically NEEDS to be polymorphed to compete.
Thats not a gentleman's agreement. That's basically blackmail. Of course I would expect the DM to also use Polymorph, and use it myself as a DM. It's in the book. But the way you say it it seems you'll use to effectively beat your players, instead of challenging them. I would use it to give them a challenging encounter at their level of optimisation, if they express a wish to be challenged.
Not exactly, it's a way of keeping the most ridiculous stuff from appearing in the game, and if it does, a way of dealing with it. I don't like banning things outright, but I do feel that if a party cleric goes around abusing holy word with CL shenanigans, it can change the face of the game. It's only fair that my bad guys get to (occasionally, not all the time) do that as well, in that case. Ditto MDJ - if the party never uses it on the bad guys, the bad guys will never use it on the party.
In the end, it works out well for the party, because quite frankly, I don't care if they MDJ my NPCs stuff. I don't care too much if they sunder my cleric's holy symbol (clever play), but they DO care when it happens to them. Or think about Death Blow (the feat from CAdv, I think, the one that lets you CdG as a standard action). It's cool to do as a PC, but it's lethal in the hands of an NPC. CdGs are hard to pull off normally, but if you can walk in and do it, that's a different kettle of Hold Person entirely.
At any rate, the point is more that turnabout is fair play. A good DM can challenge players, and good players can think of ways around those challenges. I said in my earlier (very long) post, a good gaming session is co-constructed, a collaborative effort between Players and DM.
EDIT: Addressing the fighter's power level is a different issue. I contend that fighters don't need to be polymorphed to perform effectively, especially when they could instead take some levels from ToB, or do one of many things that melee characters do to stay relevant. A fighter-20, maybe, but if we're playing in a game with fighter-20s that are unoptimized, I'll slip the optimization levels of the opposition as well. Co-construction and turnabout again: if the party feels that the fighter needs to be a hydra to compete, then I can hardly be discredited for doing the same thing to my fighters, can I?
At any rate, the point is more that turnabout is fair play.
QFT. When you choose to utilize loopholes then don't be surprised when the DM pulls out loopholes as well. I wonder what such a person was thinking.
"I'm the bestz playerz and i'm going to show youz suckerz how the game is played. Yeah the DM's just gunna have to roolz over and suckz it up and not retaliatez cuz i'm the bestz playerz evar!"?
The game's already rigged in his favor -- he doesn't have to play by the same rules as us. He can make incredibly challenging encounters with just a little bit of forethought. Why is there a need to restrict the player?
Granted... given enough leeway a character can break the game world. But think of it this way: if everyone pays for their magic items with salt, suddenly salt doesn't cut it anymore as a means of payment. Certainly the players were not the first people ever to figure out how to do certain things, so at some point they'll likely run into the first person who did -- and that person will mop the floor with their faces.
On the example of unlimited Wishing: Wish is a spell that alters the very fabric of the universe to make something happen. When it's within certain boundaries, that's okay -- but when people start Wishing left and right, things will start going wrong. At some point, I imagine the Astral plane would start rupturing itself, and the god/dess of magic will likely come up and take the Wizard's powers away forever so the world doesn't end. If there are consequences to one's actions, and especially if they're dire, you'll see they suddenly start taking those actions a lot less often...
Ice Assassin Corellons
And your point is?
If it's not you casting, how are you going to apply that?
If it IS you (via Shapechange), you should still be bound to the same limits of use (per round/minute/hour/day/week/month/year or whatever).
Either way, in my house rule, any time a spell like ability is used that normally has an XP or Material Component cost then it must be paid by a PC regardless of who is casting the spell like ability.
Either way, in my house rule, any time a spell like ability is used that normally has an XP or Material Component cost then it must be paid by a PC regardless of who is casting the spell like ability.
That house rule would take care of EVERYTHING broken. They'd never get past level one. :D
As for my point about Ice Assassin. Here it is: It is broken. It breaks the game. Even if you don't use your uber created deity for anything other than it's salient divine abilites, which would be infinite spells of all kinds. Yay!
And no, it's not too hard.
My personal philosophy as a DM (and someone that runs a living campaign) is to allow everything, and only ban or alter the most egregiously bad stuff. After that, everything tends to sort of even itself out.
And no, it's not too hard.
That's pretty good, actually. We're sort of doing the same thing.