Is the term "broken" really just a euphemism for "I don't like that"?


Gamer Life General Discussion

1 to 50 of 55 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Frequently on gaming boards (not just these boards), the word "broken" is bandied around. Also, with almost equal frequency, those boards and specific threads turn into flame wars in which the original poster refuses to (and often never intended to) debate or concede any element of their claim. Should we really be using these types of terms in civil discourse? Should we try to find more constructive ways of addressing problems we discover?

Just wondering...what do you think?


Ixancoatl wrote:

Frequently on gaming boards (not just these boards), the word "broken" is bandied around. Also, with almost equal frequency, those boards and specific threads turn into flame wars in which the original poster refuses to (and often never intended to) debate or concede any element of their claim. Should we really be using these types of terms in civil discourse? Should we try to find more constructive ways of addressing problems we discover?

Just wondering...what do you think?

In many case, I'm not even sure if the person using the word means "too powerful" or "does not work".

'findel

Dark Archive

Ixancoatl wrote:

Frequently on gaming boards (not just these boards), the word "broken" is bandied around. Also, with almost equal frequency, those boards and specific threads turn into flame wars in which the original poster refuses to (and often never intended to) debate or concede any element of their claim. Should we really be using these types of terms in civil discourse? Should we try to find more constructive ways of addressing problems we discover?

Just wondering...what do you think?

Hey Ix, haven't seen you around for awhile. Yes I agree that sometimes broken is just a code for I hate it. My rule is that the more people who have a problem with a rule, class, race, etc. themore likly it is really something that can break the game by being over the top, my definition of broken.


Ixancoatl wrote:

Frequently on gaming boards (not just these boards), the word "broken" is bandied around. Also, with almost equal frequency, those boards and specific threads turn into flame wars in which the original poster refuses to (and often never intended to) debate or concede any element of their claim. Should we really be using these types of terms in civil discourse? Should we try to find more constructive ways of addressing problems we discover?

Just wondering...what do you think?

More often than not.


Ixancoatl wrote:

Frequently on gaming boards (not just these boards), the word "broken" is bandied around. Also, with almost equal frequency, those boards and specific threads turn into flame wars in which the original poster refuses to (and often never intended to) debate or concede any element of their claim. Should we really be using these types of terms in civil discourse? Should we try to find more constructive ways of addressing problems we discover?

Just wondering...what do you think?

It is also often used to represent that the person doesn't actually know how the rules work.


I think that "Broken" is just a matter of one persons strong belief that something is too powerful.

Just as "Nerfed" is a persons strong belief that something is too weak.

My experience as a DM/GM has shown me that neither one of these is truly ever the case. Creativity can turn a "nerfed" ability into something very useful or surprisingly powerful. Something that is "broken" often just needs the DM to account for it while preparing his games. Most often something that is "broken" isn't really.


In that case elves are broken!

I would say that the term broken, to me anyway, means unbalanced.

And the quick fix is Rule0 and apply common sense.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

I think that, yes, it is indeed a euphemism for "I don't like that" in a LOT of cases. I think also it's a way for folks to complain that a class doesn't work the way they think it should work. Calling a bard broken because he can't hold his own in melee combat the same way a fighter can is just ignorance at work, in the same way calling a fighter broken because he can't provide bonuses to everyone else's combat powers as good as a bard can.

I think that these misuses of the word "broken" have, unfortunately, obscured a fair amount of legitimate concerns about things that are ACTUALLY broken, in fact, which is kind of frustrating. Fortunately, I also don't think that, in the PFRPG or 3.5's core rules, at least, there really IS a lot that's actually broken.


James Jacobs wrote:

I think that, yes, it is indeed a euphemism for "I don't like that" in a LOT of cases. I think also it's a way for folks to complain that a class doesn't work the way they think it should work. Calling a bard broken because he can't hold his own in melee combat the same way a fighter can is just ignorance at work, in the same way calling a fighter broken because he can't provide bonuses to everyone else's combat powers as good as a bard can.

I think that these misuses of the word "broken" have, unfortunately, obscured a fair amount of legitimate concerns about things that are ACTUALLY broken, in fact, which is kind of frustrating. Fortunately, I also don't think that, in the PFRPG or 3.5's core rules, at least, there really IS a lot that's actually broken.

+1


It is easier to put in a title than, "I believe I have found a problem regarding ability A when used in situation B which has caused issues within my game."


I believe responding with, "It is only a problem for you because you are teh dumb" is equally broken.


Buck Cherry is broken.


Alright, who has th Broken alias? I demand that you post in this thread immediatly.


Frogboy wrote:
Buck Cherry is broken.

long as we our on that subject I must insert tom cruise as broken.


David Fryer wrote:
Ixancoatl wrote:

Frequently on gaming boards (not just these boards), the word "broken" is bandied around. Also, with almost equal frequency, those boards and specific threads turn into flame wars in which the original poster refuses to (and often never intended to) debate or concede any element of their claim. Should we really be using these types of terms in civil discourse? Should we try to find more constructive ways of addressing problems we discover?

Just wondering...what do you think?

Hey Ix, haven't seen you around for awhile. Yes I agree that sometimes broken is just a code for I hate it. My rule is that the more people who have a problem with a rule, class, race, etc. themore likly it is really something that can break the game by being over the top, my definition of broken.

I agree with this rule of thumb. Though its not at all unheard of for some players to have wandered down a dark alley of the rules and come up with something that really is broken but just does not come up in enough other games to be widely perceived of as being an issue.

Scarab Sages

Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Lost Omens Subscriber

There is a level of shock and selective memory that comes from the word "broken" as well. Not to mention kneejerk reactions and ranting.

For example:

Recently in a game of 3.5, the cleric complained that Psionics were "broken", due to a Will save or die ability that the Psion had used repeatedly. He didn't realize we had only fought things with low will saves, and that the psion eventually ran out of power points, effectively making him useless for 3 fights (half the fights we had been in). We also didn't come up against anything with PR, which would have changed his view as well.

The cleric was shocked it happened to work well (the Psion had no future knowledge of what he was fighting) and had a knee jerk reaction to the fact that 50% of the fights were easy kills. I'm guessing if he had been a regular on a messageboard and had little to do that night (save to rant to us), he would have made a post stating Psion's were broken.


CourtFool wrote:
It is easier to put in a title than, "I believe I have found a problem regarding ability A when used in situation B which has caused issues within my game."

I agree with this as well - saying something is broken is often pretty good shorthand. Sure its used by people who refuse to listen to counter arguments but that'd probably be true even if they used a long way of writing it out.

Its also often the case that some is circumstantially broken. Clerics of Pelor (actually its some prestige class) might be fine most games but broken in Age of Worms were they are just going to be too dominating in too many fights.


Modera wrote:

There is a level of shock and selective memory that comes from the word "broken" as well. Not to mention kneejerk reactions and ranting.

For example:

Recently in a game of 3.5, the cleric complained that Psionics were "broken", due to a Will save or die ability that the Psion had used repeatedly. He didn't realize we had only fought things with low will saves, and that the psion eventually ran out of power points, effectively making him useless for 3 fights (half the fights we had been in). We also didn't come up against anything with PR, which would have changed his view as well.

The cleric was shocked it happened to work well (the Psion had no future knowledge of what he was fighting) and had a knee jerk reaction to the fact that 50% of the fights were easy kills. I'm guessing if he had been a regular on a messageboard and had little to do that night (save to rant to us), he would have made a post stating Psion's were broken.

This is a good point as well - it takes time to figure out if something is truly broken. Lots of knee jerk reactions kicking around that prove to be either untrue over the long haul or not particularly relevant. Character X may well be broken against Lycanthropes but its only important if the campaign features lots of Lycanthropes.

Dust of Sneezing and Choking, however is simply broken. It can only be handled by the DM using rule 0.


Broken when used usually means that a person sees it either as too powerful or non-functional and usually chosen as it expresses this idea in a provocative manner meant to draw attention to the perceived issue.

Like anything it's from the posters point of view. What is broken to one might seem perfectly ok to another. But the use of the term was to express a belief in a flaw that the poster believes exists. Whether it does or not the issue exists doesn't really change why the word was used or how the user meant for the word to be perceived.


CourtFool wrote:
It is easier to put in a title than, "I believe I have found a problem regarding ability A when used in situation B which has caused issues within my game."

Couldn't you just title it "Problem w/ Ability A?" and still be fine? Why "broken"?


I think these are all strong and valid points. I like pres's point that it frequently veils a mis- or lack of understanding of the rules, but I also like the idea of the "shock value" of the term "broken".

Maybe one of my other concerns is whether or not threads are titled "broken" just to instigate flame wars (I do know a little about instigation). Shouldn't we be better than this by now? I mean, geeks, nerds, goobers, or whatever you find yourself categorized as now should be more collegial and merely poke fun in good spirits rather than viscious rancor, shouldn't we? I just frequently wonder why "broken" is the fallback position.

All of the above possibilities are most likely true, but I often feel bile is the underlying reason for "broken's" bandiment about.


sorry it took a while to get back to my thread. I had to go corru .... uhm ... teach my students some stuff. Today's lesson was "When I say you will get a Zero on the assignment if you write about topic A, I mean you will get a Zero" and why they need to pay closer attention ...

.... oh and something about how to tell if sources are good for a research paper.

Also, I am moving into a phase of wanting people to not fear speaking truth to power out of the possibility of being fired or otherwise reprimanded. I would like to hope that our community is entirely (or close to entirely) made up of people who are not afraid to say what they see as truth without fear of overwhelming retaliation, and I feel that many uses of the term "broken" are designed to bait people into speaking their minds just so they be attacked.

(Ok, yes, I know I am greatly guilty of this ... open up the free-for-all of "hello, kettle? This is the pot" references)


Jeremy Mac Donald wrote:


Its also often the case that some is circumstantially broken. Clerics of Pelor (actually its some prestige class) might be fine most games but broken in Age of Worms were they are just going to be too dominating in too many fights.

I would say this is the basis of most "BROKEN!!!" accusations. Almost every debate I've gotten into over the past few days on the messageboards has brought up a case of something being broken or needing to be reworked as a result of a very static situation described by the person who wishes to decry the broken item/class/race/whathaveyou. When both parties take a step back, it is usually found that something is not broken- although it may still be flawed.

That itching and sneezing powder ain't appearing in any of MY games, though. ;-)


James Jacobs wrote:

I think that, yes, it is indeed a euphemism for "I don't like that" in a LOT of cases. I think also it's a way for folks to complain that a class doesn't work the way they think it should work. Calling a bard broken because he can't hold his own in melee combat the same way a fighter can is just ignorance at work, in the same way calling a fighter broken because he can't provide bonuses to everyone else's combat powers as good as a bard can.

I think that these misuses of the word "broken" have, unfortunately, obscured a fair amount of legitimate concerns about things that are ACTUALLY broken, in fact, which is kind of frustrating. Fortunately, I also don't think that, in the PFRPG or 3.5's core rules, at least, there really IS a lot that's actually broken.

I agree; however, now that the term has been so misused, can't we find other/better ways to address the fair amount of concerns about things that are broken? I mean we are all just looking for ways to improve our games, aren't we?


Ixancoatl wrote:
... now that the term has been so misused, can't we find other/better ways to address the fair amount of concerns about things that are broken? I mean we are all just looking for ways to improve our games, aren't we?

We could but good luck getting anyone to use it. "Broken" has entered the realm of gamer geek slang and is probably here to stay...for a while at least.

Dark Archive

Also, sometimes the problem is not with the RAW but with the way they are handled at the game table. For example, the Avarial elf is a +3 LA RAW, but when I was still fairly new to 3.5 I let a player talk me into letting him run it as a +1 LA creature. It quickly became clear why the rule was the way it was, but by then the damage was done. My players still think that Avarial are broken, when what was really broken was the way I handled the rules.


Frogboy wrote:
Ixancoatl wrote:
... now that the term has been so misused, can't we find other/better ways to address the fair amount of concerns about things that are broken? I mean we are all just looking for ways to improve our games, aren't we?
We could but good luck getting anyone to use it. "Broken" has entered the realm of gamer geek slang and is probably here to stay...for a while at least.

Yeeeeahhhhh ... I was afraid of that.


Ixancoatl wrote:
...can't we find other/better ways to address the fair amount of concerns about things that are broken?

O.k. Class based systems are hugely flawed!!!1!!shift+1

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies, Representative - D20 Hobbies

Ixancoatl wrote:
Frequently on gaming boards (not just these boards), the word "broken" is bandied around ... what do you think?

I ignore it. There was very little "broken" content in 3.5 from WoTC. I can name on my hands the number of truly broken items. The majority of allegedly broken material was easily remedied by the GM applying logic and common sense to the meaning of the text (which is often the opposite of those that want the broken material "broken" so they can abuse it.)


David Fryer wrote:
Also, sometimes the problem is not with the RAW but with the way they are handled at the game table. For example, the Avarial elf is a +3 LA RAW, but when I was still fairly new to 3.5 I let a player talk me into letting him run it as a +1 LA creature. It quickly became clear why the rule was the way it was, but by then the damage was done. My players still think that Avarial are broken, when what was really broken was the way I handled the rules.

I had a player run an avariel fighter. My player balked at the LA, but I stuck with it. After all, having what is essentially a permanent 3rd level spell effect on a first level character is a great advantage.

Of course, around 10th level she flew into a sphere of annihilation covered by the illusion of a peasant in distress. At that point, she was well and truly broken.

Same player also ran a lythari. I have to say that race was unbalanced even with the level adjustment.

Liberty's Edge

I think it is. It seems that any ability that is either too good seems to be broken nowadays. I usually hear the term from DM/GM who run their games with an iron fist. It's also a pretty popular term over at the Wotc forum. Every game has those who use the term yet in my experience it seems that you seem it used more often among those who play D&D more then anything else. Not trying to start anything just being honest about my experiences.

Dark Archive

Ixancoatl wrote:
Frequently on gaming boards (not just these boards), the word "broken" is bandied around.

Like most 'shorthand' terms, it breaks down when you try to define it. The most concise 'label' is usually the least generally applicable to any one situation, and arguments as to how it's applicable end up degenerating into useless bickering over semantics and personal opinion, which make the entire topic so heated that people just start avoiding it on general principle, detracting from anything ever getting done about any *actual* imbalance that may exist.

I've seen broken applied to things that I consider hideously broken.

I've seen things called 'broken' that are only 'broken' if combined with feats, spells and magic items from three different non-core supplements, and, by themselves, are absolutely fine, and perhaps even *underpowered.*

Too many fixes, IMO, are sledgehammers applied to core classes or abilities or whatever, when they require scalpels applied to very specific (and, often, non-core) issues. The word 'broken,' with all of it's dismissive and hystrionic baggage, just exacerbates the situation.


Ixancoatl wrote:
poke fun in good spirits rather than viscious rancor

Yeah, I wouldn't poke a Rancor.

Spoiler:
I know, not relevant, not even the kind of rancor he was talking about. It's just when I read that sentence, I got an image of someone poking a Rancor while it was asleep.


Broken is a term that is regular used in the MMO-threads and it is mostly people screaming about how class A is to powerful and class B is to weak. That being said...

Ixancoatl wrote:
Frogboy wrote:
Ixancoatl wrote:
... now that the term has been so misused, can't we find other/better ways to address the fair amount of concerns about things that are broken? I mean we are all just looking for ways to improve our games, aren't we?
We could but good luck getting anyone to use it. "Broken" has entered the realm of gamer geek slang and is probably here to stay...for a while at least.
Yeeeeahhhhh ... I was afraid of that.

It will eventually become brpken. You see I misspelled Broken with a p! I am 1337! pwned.

-You may return to your regularly scheduled posting.

Liberty's Edge

While there are build combinations that, if DMs allow various splats (just assuming WotC 3x stuff here), in combination, will mathematically give a character a serious advantage (i.e. is truly "broken" in a game design sense), I do think the term is overused to the point where it is pretty much meaningless. As a shorthand for the number crunchers it may have meaning, but in a layman sense, it really is an opinion thing.

I dislike a lot of splat stuff from a flavor/taste standpoint (yeah, I'm a codger like that), but little that WotC released, as long as the DM has a functional brain, is truly "broken". Just limiting the resources available in a campaign is usually enough to avoid the few lethal combinations players can exploit.

Dark Archive

I'll agree that quite a few things in 3.5 needed to be better balanced. There was a lot of problems that just weren't thought through.

In my opinion Tome of Battle has a huge power curve in favor of its classes, no matter what they truly are, as written. I have seen a number of house rulings that balance it back into something manageable; but in the end there are those who think that any lack of resource management is bad design, and those who argue that anyone saying that ToB is "broken" is saying melee characters "can't have anything good".

Hell I pointed out that RAW that book could produce an infinite number of encounters with the warblade slogging through it all no problem.

Anyways, that is an example of something I consider horrendously broken. I felt that Warblade stomped all over the fighter and said "why play a PHB base class when you can have THIS!"

Same with Crusader and PHB Paladin...no alignment restriction really, and an ability to smite freely, no restrictions? Sure...

Same with Monk and Swordsage.

Back to my point. Broken gets thrown around in a few cases when people don't understand things. Sometimes they discover a loophole that was long closed and don't know the errata that says page 12 is essentially blank now. Or something like that. For every three players that DON'T know the rules, you have roughly one or two who know them TOO well and can usually pull them together in such a way.

I have one of those players in my group. he's just a persistent min-maxer and that's what he does. I'm fine with it really, it just means I have to be even handed with him. The worst is when he tries to imply "Well sure you could rule it that way, but its stupid that way..."

So, when I look at something as broken, its usually because that player has brought it up to me and said "Hey I want to do X."


So, to add to this (thankfully still civil) discourse, how often does "broken" come up because an individual overlooks the Role-playing intent, campaign specific, or restrictive RP disadvantageous elements of as certain rule, PrC, or game element?

Dark Archive

Ixancoatl wrote:
So, to add to this (thankfully still civil) discourse, how often does "broken" come up because an individual overlooks the Role-playing intent, campaign specific, or restrictive RP disadvantageous elements of as certain rule, PrC, or game element?

Campaign specific, more than most of the rest, in my experience, with Forgotten Realms specific stuff (Incantatrix) or Eberron specific stuff (Moonspeaker) being dragged into another setting.

Some settings 'take it up to 11,' and don't play as well with bog-standard stuff. (Then again, some doozies are available in Core as well.)

[rant-tangent]
IMO, a Feat, spell, PrC, etc. should *never* be 'balanced' with fluff. Fluff is flavor, and flavor is the first thing to get chopped off in conversions to other settings (to be replaced with setting-appropriate flavor, ideally, which may 'balance' completely differently, or not at all!). If something has strong mechanical advantages, it should be balanced with *mechanical* restrictions. If it's got purely social / role-playing advantages, then it's fine to balance those out with social / role-playing restrictions, but even then, they should be used sparingly, as they require the DM and player to constantly adjudicate whether or not the player is 'within the spirit of the rules.'

That's just busy-work for the DM, who has an entire party to run the game for, and shouldn't be tasked with making sure that character X is abiding by her code of conduct, or that character Y hasn't done anything to violate some Vow.

The worst are when something is introduced that would utterly unbalance the game, but is rationalized as 'okay' because some bit of flavor text is thrown out saying, 'But they'd never do that!' Puh-leeze. An Efreeti isn't going to take Leadership and grant his mortal cohort a Wish every day, under the conditions that the mortal read off two other Wishes that the Efreeti has written up to advance his own interests because 'Efreeti don't do that?' Shyeah. Roight. The Padishah Emperor of the Efreeti is going to send people to stop him? Not. The PEotE is too busy doing the same darn thing, if he isn't a complete moron.

That's a prime example of last-minute attempts to 'balance with fluff' and it's, IMO, utterly ludicrous.

Fluff isn't 'balance.' It's scotch tape applied to an arterial wound.[/end rant-tangent]


Dissinger wrote:

Anyways, that is an example of something I consider horrendously broken. I felt that Warblade stomped all over the fighter and said "why play a PHB base class when you can have THIS!" Same with Crusader and PHB Paladin...no alignment restriction really, and an ability to smite freely, no restrictions? Sure...

Same with Monk and Swordsage.

I think the idea was that the fighter, paladin, and monk weren't viable after low/mid level, and therefore would be REPLACED by the warblade, crusader, and swordsage, respectively.


Ixancoatl wrote:
So, to add to this (thankfully still civil) discourse, how often does "broken" come up because an individual overlooks the Role-playing intent, campaign specific, or restrictive RP disadvantageous elements of as certain rule, PrC, or game element?

More or less I agree with Set. But I also agree with you. Weird huh, but here's why. What works fine in my home game because of the RP limitations and organizational controls I might place on some PrC (say a knightly order like the Hell Knights). It doesn't make it a balanced or I guess well balanced PrC. Here's the issue, if that same PrC shows up at a convention game, in a society game or anywhere else were long term RP resrictions do not apply then the class becomes more powerful and possibly unbalanced. And that is were people will see it and say that it is "broken" and in that setting maybe it is. I'm not sure a class that is "balanced" by rp restrictions is really a balanced class. I think of the Paladin when I think about this balanced by RP.


Ixancoatl wrote:
So, to add to this (thankfully still civil) discourse, how often does "broken" come up because an individual overlooks the Role-playing intent, campaign specific, or restrictive RP disadvantageous elements of as certain rule, PrC, or game element?

I agree with Set, but I also think that it is not so much "overlooking" as it is "intentionally ignoring". This also plays into my earlier argument that situational elements are ignored in favor of static or fixed situations when accusations of broken-ness are being bandied about.


Thurgon wrote:
Ixancoatl wrote:
So, to add to this (thankfully still civil) discourse, how often does "broken" come up because an individual overlooks the Role-playing intent, campaign specific, or restrictive RP disadvantageous elements of as certain rule, PrC, or game element?
More or less I agree with Set. But I also agree with you. Weird huh, but here's why. What works fine in my home game because of the RP limitations and organizational controls I might place on some PrC (say a knightly order like the Hell Knights). It doesn't make it a balanced or I guess well balanced PrC. Here's the issue, if that same PrC shows up at a convention game, in a society game or anywhere else were long term RP resrictions do not apply then the class becomes more powerful and possibly unbalanced. And that is were people will see it and say that it is "broken" and in that setting maybe it is. I'm not sure a class that is "balanced" by rp restrictions is really a balanced class. I think of the Paladin when I think about this balanced by RP.

I do agree with Set, but I think I differ on the element of "fluff" as balancing. It is a ROLE playing game which means if the "fluff" requires the concept of the charater to act a certain way (e.g. a paladin does not kill and eat babies for the pleasure of it), that is a controlling mechanism meant to limit the scope of the character taking that class/PrC. Not playing the character towards that intended role for the class/PrC is analagous to ignoring the rules sets that govern the combat elements of some other class/PrC (say, how unarmed combat works when playing a monk or reaping mauler).

Freehold DM wrote:


I agree with Set, but I also think that it is not so much "overlooking" as it is "intentionally ignoring". This also plays into my earlier argument that situational elements are ignored in favor of static or fixed situations when accusations of broken-ness are being bandied about.

This is mainly why I brought up this part of the thread. If you remove the PrC (or feat or class or whatever) from the setting it is designed to be a part of, are you similarly ignoring what the PrC (or whatever) is designed to do as though you were ignoring rules sets. Calling something "broken" in these instances leans more towards the "I don't like how this works" or "I don't understand how this works" side rather than the "this just doesn't work" side.


Broken might simply be defined as to mean: "It breaks the fun/sense of disbelief of the game for me."


"Broken" is broken.

People who use that expression should be made aware that it's played out.


Ixancoatl wrote:
So, to add to this (thankfully still civil) discourse, how often does "broken" come up because an individual overlooks the Role-playing intent, campaign specific, or restrictive RP disadvantageous elements of as certain rule, PrC, or game element?

Someone mentioning Stormwind Fallacy in, 3, 2, 1...

Spoiler:
Yes, I am aware I am being equally dismissive.

Paizo Employee Managing Developer

PRD wrote:

Broken: Items that have taken damage in excess of half their total hit points gain the broken condition, meaning they are less effective at their designated task. The broken condition has the following effects, depending upon the item.

* If the item is a weapon, any attacks made with the item suffer a –2 penalty on attack and damage rolls. Such weapons only score a critical hit on a natural 20 and only deal ×2 damage on a confirmed critical hit.
* If the item is a suit of armor or a shield, the bonus it grants to AC is halved, rounding down. Broken armor doubles its armor check penalty on skills.
* If the item is a tool needed for a skill, any skill check made with the item takes a –2 penalty.
* If the item is a wand or staff, it uses up twice as many charges when used.
* If the item does not fit into any of these categories, the broken condition has no effect on its use. Items with the broken condition, regardless of type, are worth 75% of their normal value. If the item is magical, it can only be repaired with a mending or make whole spell cast by a character with a caster level equal to or higher than the item's. Items lose the broken condition if the spell restores the object to half its original hit points or higher. Non-magical items can be repaired in a similar fashion, or through the Craft skill used to create it. Generally speaking, this requires a DC 20 Craft check and 1 hour of work per point of damage to be repaired. Most craftsmen charge one-tenth the item's total cost to repair such damage (more if the item is badly damaged or ruined).

Spoiler:
I missed the point here, didn't I? ;)

Adam Daigle wrote:
PRD wrote:
Broken: Adam Daigle's mind.
** spoiler omitted **

Pretty much!


CourtFool wrote:
Ixancoatl wrote:
So, to add to this (thankfully still civil) discourse, how often does "broken" come up because an individual overlooks the Role-playing intent, campaign specific, or restrictive RP disadvantageous elements of as certain rule, PrC, or game element?

Someone mentioning Stormwind Fallacy in, 3, 2, 1...

** spoiler omitted **

But Im sure they asked for it.

Spoiler:

Who ever those unnamed individuals are.

Dark Archive

Modera wrote:

There is a level of shock and selective memory that comes from the word "broken" as well. Not to mention kneejerk reactions and ranting.

For example:

Recently in a game of 3.5, the cleric complained that Psionics were "broken", due to a Will save or die ability that the Psion had used repeatedly. He didn't realize we had only fought things with low will saves, and that the psion eventually ran out of power points, effectively making him useless for 3 fights (half the fights we had been in). We also didn't come up against anything with PR, which would have changed his view as well.

The cleric was shocked it happened to work well (the Psion had no future knowledge of what he was fighting) and had a knee jerk reaction to the fact that 50% of the fights were easy kills. I'm guessing if he had been a regular on a messageboard and had little to do that night (save to rant to us), he would have made a post stating Psion's were broken.

As a player, I would be fairly pleased with this outcome. It leaves me with more resources to use.

As a DM it might annoy me and cause me to find villains with better will saves, but thats just the kind of DM I am!!

"Broken" is a term that is thorwn around too much for EITHER 3.x, 4e, and Pathfinder. I too believe that it is used for something that others do not like.

Sovereign Court

houstonderek wrote:

While there are build combinations that, if DMs allow various splats (just assuming WotC 3x stuff here), in combination, will mathematically give a character a serious advantage (i.e. is truly "broken" in a game design sense), I do think the term is overused to the point where it is pretty much meaningless. As a shorthand for the number crunchers it may have meaning, but in a layman sense, it really is an opinion thing.

I dislike a lot of splat stuff from a flavor/taste standpoint (yeah, I'm a codger like that), but little that WotC released, as long as the DM has a functional brain, is truly "broken". Just limiting the resources available in a campaign is usually enough to avoid the few lethal combinations players can exploit.

Houstonderek is spot-on with this assessment. I agree.

1 to 50 of 55 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / Is the term "broken" really just a euphemism for "I don't like that"? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.