1. Pathfinder products only, no 3.5. (If you're running a PF game). There are few enough extra books made for that it prevents more advanced power gaming.
2. 4d.6, drop lowest. Do not reroll 1s. Allow yourself to review the final array to completely reroll if it's too sucky.
|
It can be a bit of work to have to crank up the power level of all opponent forces in your games in order to challenge over-powered PCs. Lets face it, player characters tend to be optimized with the latest rules and options available, while published creatures and NPCs are usually designed with mostly core abilities and balanced for a party doing the same.
But even with the extra work on the DM, it's a lot easier on the group, in my experience, to turn up the challenge of monsters and NPCs than it is to turn down the power level of PCs, particularly when the players like them that way. If it's going to make your players miserable to have you limit their options arbitrarily (and remember: the goal is for everyone to have fun), your only fair way to balance the equation is to give your monsters more options to match.
That, or add more creatures to your combat encounters, and raise the DCs of skill checks. Just make sure you don't award extra XP and treasure in this case, since the goal is to offset the advantage of the PCs' higher power level, not inflate it even faster...
My two copper.
|
On a related note, I've definitely noticed a strange sense of entitlement that has grown over the 3.x timeframe - back in 1e and 2e days, it was always the DM's prerogative to audit characters and allow/disallow any particular book, spell, option, etc. Even in early 3e, it was "you can't take a prestige class unless the DM has made it available specifically in game somehow." But now the default assumption is "I can take anything I want anytime I want - buy whatever gear I have the money for, take whatever p-class I can find" - and the DM trying to provide any oversight is seen as meddling.
This is a great point. The root of the issue is, as far as I can tell, the sweeping move toward postmoderism and deconstructionalism that is so very popular for those who come of age in the early nineties and thereafter. For some in this group, there is no such thing as a definitive authority, or alternately, a definitive authority can be readily found that complies with one's world view whatever that happens to be. Such a belief structure is especially beneficial to anyone that believes themselves disenfranchised in some way, be it socially, economically or what have you. If one is a minority in any aspect and dissatisfied, then any belief structure that allows a sustained attack on the status quo is satisfactory. If a belief structure can be found that explicitly decrees that there is no authority and therefore the status quo is inherently invalid or illegal, then it is all the sweeter.
Do not forget that this generation is the Internet generation. Every opinion can be found online with ample facts (or versions of facts) to make any belief system seem plausible. When this happens from birth onwards, one begins to believe that nothing is absolute or alternately, that whatever one believes is the "truth" because evidence in support of that version of truth is readily available. Other, perhaps valid evidence, is rejected as the propaganda of one's opponents. This rejection is made possible because, on the Internet, there is no clearly defined authoritative reference to establish facts. Even the much-worshiped Wikipedia, the very bastion of collective online group-think if ever there was one, has been forced to lock wide swaths of pages because so many people fervently believe their version of the "facts" as to continually disrupt the production of pages on topics they feel passionately about (ref pages on George Bush on both sides of the argument about him). As an aside, the issue of Wikipedia being used as a "fact source" is of dubious merit (and yes I am aware I used it in my links above, it *is* convenient if nothing else) because no one can agree on what the facts are; what is published is only what everyone agrees is true or worse, yet, what the oligarchy that runs Wikipedia believes the facts to be.
This is where the sense of entitlement comes from. For example, it can be shown in the RAW that the players are allowed to buy any item, spell or what have you in a town of a certain size or can be any PrC for which they qualify. This piece of evidence, which admittedly clearly exists, empowers those that believe that the game is and always should be wholly there's or at best, is a complete and equitable sharing of power at the table. The evidence that rules and advice throughout the published rules inform players that the DM has final say on any aspect of the rules, exists to arbitrate areas not covered in the rules, or is allowed to change or make new rules, is listed by some as a failure in rules design rather than having merit as a counterbalance to the power granted to players. If you want to see a postmoderist player froth, invoke Rule 0 sometime.
Someone up above said something like "only a dick DM would do anything the players (his friends!) didn't want". This is a classic example of this thinking in action. It basically decomposes to "the rules say I can do X and anyone that disagrees with me is a failure as a friend and a person" but it ignores the equally plausible and justifiable argument that the DM, who almost certainly has invested more time and energy into the planning of the game session and who is equally supported by the rules, is dealing with players that do not respect his rules-granted authority because it is inconvenient to do so. Moreover, the worldview of such players is such that the DM's opposing viewpoint is ab initio invalid because at least some evidence can be found to refute it. Any evidence the DM can produce to the contrary is just a "dick move" and use of broken, bad, rules (propaganda).
|
|
I never said they were the highest authority in the hobby. I said they were the highest authority that's actually put together clear, meaningful, legitimately useful definitions for the terms.In truth, they are somebody you stumbled across on the Internet who have a defintion you agree with, and, because they agree with you, you think they are the "highest authority" and that their definition is "clear, meaningful, and legitimately useful". It's a classic logical error on your part.
Uh, exactly.
If you're having trouble challenging them because they are tending toward the power-gaming end of the spectrum, consider adding more monsters to the mix. Don't simply upgrade a monster's hit points. That just devalues damage-dealing tactics in favor of the save-or-die ones that will remain unaffected. Instead, pick a monster 1 CR down from what you'd normally use and add a second. That will keep them from concentrating their actions quite as much on a single opponent, give you more ways to get at them, and do so without significantly undermining damage-dealing spells.
You could also consider bumping them up just a few hit dice and picking up the save bonus feats to make them a little tougher against save-or-die spells without being ridiculous about it. Alternatively, recognize that the stats for each monster are for your typical versions. Bump up the Wisdom or Dexterity a little and they'll see some save improvements as well.
On a related note, I've definitely noticed a strange sense of entitlement that has grown over the 3.x timeframe - back in 1e and 2e days, it was always the DM's prerogative to audit characters and allow/disallow any particular book, spell, option, etc. Even in early 3e, it was "you can't take a prestige class unless the DM has made it available specifically in game somehow." But now the default assumption is "I can take anything I want anytime I want - buy whatever gear I have the money for, take whatever p-class I can find" - and the DM trying to provide any oversight is seen as meddling.This is a great point. The root of the issue is, as far as I can tell, the sweeping move toward postmoderism and deconstructionalism that is so very popular for those who come of age in the early nineties and thereafter. For some in this group, there is no such thing as a definitive authority, or alternately, a definitive authority can be readily found that complies with one's world view whatever that happens to be. Such a belief structure is especially beneficial to anyone that believes themselves disenfranchised in some way, be it socially, economically or what have you. If one is a minority in any aspect and dissatisfied, then any belief structure that allows a sustained attack on the status quo is satisfactory. If a belief structure can be found that explicitly decrees that there is no authority and therefore the status quo is inherently invalid or illegal, then it is all the sweeter.
Do not forget that this generation is the Internet generation. Every opinion can be found online with ample facts (or versions of facts) to make any belief system seem plausible. When this happens from birth onwards, one begins to believe that nothing is absolute or alternately, that whatever one believes is the "truth" because evidence in support of that version of truth is readily available....
Well thought out and fun to read response! It definitely encapsulates and puts into perspective a divide in the community. I don't know if you posted it as a lark, but it does crystallize a lot of what I've been feeling since 3.0 hit the scene and made the divide in these two mindsets even more apparent.
On a related note, I've definitely noticed a strange sense of entitlement that has grown over the 3.x timeframe - back in 1e and 2e days, it was always the DM's prerogative to audit characters and allow/disallow any particular book, spell, option, etc. Even in early 3e, it was "you can't take a prestige class unless the DM has made it available specifically in game somehow." But now the default assumption is "I can take anything I want anytime I want - buy whatever gear I have the money for, take whatever p-class I can find" - and the DM trying to provide any oversight is seen as meddling.This is a great point. The root of the issue is, as far as I can tell, the sweeping move toward postmoderism and deconstructionalism that is so very popular for those who come of age in the early nineties and thereafter. For some in this group, there is no such thing as a definitive authority, or alternately, a definitive authority can be readily found that complies with one's world view whatever that happens to be. Such a belief structure is especially beneficial to anyone that believes themselves disenfranchised in some way, be it socially, economically or what have you. If one is a minority in any aspect and dissatisfied, then any belief structure that allows a sustained attack on the status quo is satisfactory. If a belief structure can be found that explicitly decrees that there is no authority and therefore the status quo is inherently invalid or illegal, then it is all the sweeter.
Do not forget that this generation is the Internet generation. Every opinion can be found online with ample facts (or versions of facts) to make any belief system seem plausible. When this happens from birth onwards, one begins to believe that nothing is absolute or alternately, that whatever one believes is the "truth" because evidence in support of that version of truth is readily available....
I could change my name to Lich right now, cause I love you.
I have a player once that wanted to play a drow, just would not shut up about it, even though it did not fit the game. So fainly I gave in and said he could play a Drow but use the elf stats but darkvsion in place of low light. But no that was no a drow. That let me know why he wanted to play a drow to start with, it had nothing to do with creativity and everything to do with power
When did creativity become linked to what class, or race adjustments you had? I have seen a creative player make a vastly more enjoyable and interesting human fighter then I have seen munchkin/powergamers make a interesting wizard or one of the class/class/class/PRC/PRC combos
Your class or how many books you can draw from do NOT make your PC interesting. How you choose to play them does.
If I remember correctly drow don't get friendly reactions when seen. Maybe when he is greeted by arrows from the town guard he might want to rethink that option. I will admit I am basing my perceptions of the drow's treatment on Mr.Salvatore's novels.
|
|
Dude, seriusly? That was very well-writen and expresses clearly a sense that I've had for some time now (and which I was fearfully attributing to my becoming part of the "get off my lawn!" crowd).
But it doesn't address the basic selfishness that is inherent in the very view you mentioned - that the player isn't considering that the GM's view is just as valid. Ironically, addressing that selfishness was just exactly the reason postmodernism and deconstructionism were created in the first place.
You are quite right, it does not address it per se, but it clearly points out that such a bias exists. Things get thorny for me here, because I am not a philosopher. I will say though, that it certainly appears that the one belief structure that postmodernism or deconstruction will not subject to its scalpel are the tenants of postmodernism and deconstruction themselves; apparently these are absolute. Irony indeed.
Edit: clarification
if a player asks why something isn't available, they're entitled to a valid explanation.No, they aren't. They are -only- entitled to choose not to play with that GM.
The rule is "What the GM says goes and if the GM says too much stupid crap, everyone goes". No one is entitled to anything more than not playing.
As equal members of a group they do deserve one(valid explanation). It's not the "DM and his players" as if the DM is the front for a rock band. It is "The Group", and the DM just happens to be he lead singer. It may be harder to find a lead singer/DM, but that does not mean they get to tell people because I said so like they are little kids.
Yeah it happens, but just because someone is a jerk and refuses to give you something, that does not mean you are not entitled to it.
|
I have a player once that wanted to play a drow, just would not shut up about it, even though it did not fit the game. So fainly I gave in and said he could play a Drow but use the elf stats but darkvsion in place of low light. But no that was no a drow. That let me know why he wanted to play a drow to start with, it had nothing to do with creativity and everything to do with powerWhen did creativity become linked to what class, or race adjustments you had? I have seen a creative player make a vastly more enjoyable and interesting human fighter then I have seen munchkin/powergamers make a interesting wizard or one of the class/class/class/PRC/PRC combos
Your class or how many books you can draw from do NOT make your PC interesting. How you choose to play them does.
That´s not really true...try making a magic user when you can only use fighters who´s attack is reflavored into magic missle. Rules MATTER. You can´t say rule are irrelevant to making a character that you can actually enjoy playing with the concept you have in mind. Now there are two types of prestige classes, the ones that are concept oriented (which generally are used to cherry pick abilites and optimize) and actually game mechanic ones...like the eldritch knight(however badly the class may do the job)...which makes some character concepts even possible in the game system. The former isn´t really necessary, the latter should be considered core.
if a player asks why something isn't available, they're entitled to a valid explanation.No, they aren't. They are -only- entitled to choose not to play with that GM.
The rule is "What the GM says goes and if the GM says too much stupid crap, everyone goes". No one is entitled to anything more than not playing.
As equal members of a group they do deserve one(valid explanation). It's not the "DM and his players" as if the DM is the front for a rock band. It is "The Group", and the DM just happens to be he lead singer. It may be harder to find a lead singer/DM, but that does not mean they get to tell people because I said so like they are little kids.
Yeah it happens, but just because someone is a jerk and refuses to give you something, that does not mean you are not entitled to it.
I believe we will agree on one thing. A GM/DM who does not provide such an explanation is far more likely to find themselves in the second part of what I said (ie. "if the GM says enough stupid crap, everyone goes"). It is courtesy to give an explanation, it is not an entitlement. The GM/DM is the front for the rock band as it were. BUT, the GM/DM should keep in mind the possibility that he/she can be replaced. The reality is, if you ask a GM/DM for an explanation on something and he refuses, it is likely because of one of two reasons 1.) he/she already gave you an explanation and you aren't listening until he/she says what you want to hear or 2.) the GM/DM really is a jerk and you wouldn't be happy in their game anyway.
If you don't like the way a GM/DM is running his/her campaign, I recommend that you create your own game and become the GM/DM.
Now to take this further sometimes they/we can't answer a question due to plot reasons, or the monster is modified. In my case, I just tell them "I have my reasons" or something along those lines. I think that should be enough most of the time*.
*I am sure there are enough exceptions, such as a new DM that does not know the rules too well that such an answer may not work.
No, they aren't. They are -only- entitled to choose not to play with that GM.
The rule is "What the GM says goes and if the GM says too much stupid crap, everyone goes". No one is entitled to anything more than not playing.
Players are entitled to not be treated like crap. Meanwhile, DMs have no right to treat players like crap. Shooting down players' ideas and desires shot down for no reason or explanation other than, "Because I said so," is firmly within the 'treating players like crap' header and outside the rights of any DM and any human being.
Let me clarify. I meant to say "someone who prefers to play on the high end of the power scale". I assumed that was implicit, I guess it wasn't.
Even then, the definition you present is worthless. You can easily have someone who prefers Exalted but still very much enjoys playing Call of Cthulhu with her friends. If the purpose of your term is to identify a type of gamer, it still fails tremendously.
That is a connotation. My definition deliberately says nothing about connotations. "Munchkin" and "powergamer" are not problems, they are styles of play. What is a problem is somebody, such as yourself, who assumes that there are right ways and wrong ways to play.
I'm not passing judgment on any style of play. I'm talking about the definition of words.
"Munchkin" and "powergamer" are not playstyles any more than "idiot" or "jerk" are lifestyles. The two words were created for the purpose of communicating a specific type of problem, not for describing a style of play. Judgmental jargon is as essential as judgmental language. "Murderer" may be a judgmental term, but that's what it's supposed to be. It's supposed to communicate judgment.
And whether there are wrong ways to play. If your mode of play involves things that are inherently wrong, like beating people up-side the head with a hammer, then your way of play is wrong. A playstyle that revolves around treating players like crap is not merely a playstyle difference. It's morally wrong because treating the players like crap is morally wrong.
The term, like 'nymphomaniac' is generally used to mean 'somebody who does it more than I do'. Everyone has their own scale for determining who a powergamer is. "Powergamer" is a vector, not a scalar.
That use of "nymphomaniac" is an abuse of a (now defunct) medical term for a legitimate mental condition that can be diagnosed and treated by trained professionals (to whatever degree of success of failure). It has a definition. That definition is simply tossed out the window far too often. "Nymphomaniac" is not a relative term.
And again, your definition fails to be useful because it makes every individual become their own reference point for the definition, preventing it from providing any meaningful level of communication. You're confusing the abuse of the word with the definition.
In truth, they are somebody you stumbled across on the Internet who have a defintion you agree with, and, because they agree with you, you think they are the "highest authority" and that their definition is "clear, meaningful, and legitimately useful". It's a classic logical error on your part.
1) Their definitions are internally consistent and facilitate communication, which is the fundamental purpose of jargon. The definitions you present are internally inconsistent and facilitate nothing.
2) You've yet to bring up a higher authority that's actually given working definitions of the terms.
Someone up above said something like "only a dick DM would do anything the players (his friends!) didn't want". This is a classic example of this thinking in action. It basically decomposes to "the rules say I can do X and anyone that disagrees with me is a failure as a friend and a person" but it ignores the equally plausible and justifiable argument that the DM, who almost certainly has invested more time and energy into the planning of the game session and who is equally supported by the rules, is dealing with players that do not respect his rules-granted authority because it is inconvenient to do so. Moreover, the worldview of such players is such that the DM's opposing viewpoint is ab initio invalid because at least some evidence can be found to refute it. Any evidence the DM can produce to the contrary is just a "dick move" and use of broken, bad, rules (propaganda).
No one said anything of the sort. I said players are entitled to an explanation of a ban if they ask for one, and they are entitled to not be treated like crap. That's very different from, "Only a dick would do something the players didn't want." Please do not lie about what others are saying.
If a player asks why something is barred, they have every right to ask why it's banned, and they are entitled to a valid answer. "Because I said 'no,'" is not a valid answer, and it is a dick move. "I will not allow the Frenzied Berserker prestige class because Deathless Frenzy is ridiculously overpowered," however, is completely legitimate. It also properly frames the issue squarely, and allows for negotiation on the actual problem of Deathless Frenzy. Meanwhile, "You're not allowed to use Complete Warrior because it has the Frenzied Berserker PrC which is completely broken," is also fundamentally unreasonable because the problem isn't the book, it's a single class within the book, and core has far more broken things in it anyways.
But it doesn't address the basic selfishness that is inherent in the very view you mentioned - that the player isn't considering that the GM's view is just as valid. Ironically, addressing that selfishness was just exactly the reason postmodernism and deconstructionism were created in the first place.
And you're not addressing the fundamental selfishness that the DM isn't considering that the player's view is just as valid, if not more so. The very reason the player is entitled to an explanation is because, while it is possible that the player is wrong, it's also possible that the DM is wrong, and when there's a conflict, the reasons must be put on the table, that they may be analyzed out in the open by all parties, rather than the DM automatically assuming that she's right and all the players are automatically wrong for challenging her.
If you feel the GM/DM is treating you like crap (and it's more than just having the occasional bad day which every person has), then I strongly urge you to quit his game. b**&*ing and whining "but I want to do X, why won't you tell me why I can't!" is treating the GM/DM like crap. Just move on to another game or start your own.
*Sigh.*
That doesn't change the fact that it's bad DMing to deny players any sort of explanation when they ask for one. Whether or not it's worth staying at that point is a separate issue entirely. It is complete non sequitur to retort to, "X is a bad DMing practice," with, "No it isn't because you should just leave at that point."
Folks who keep framing things as 'The DM has the right to do whatever he wants, and if you don't like it, bugger off,' are only empowers the DMs who are treating their players like crap. If it's actually acknowledged as a bad DMing habit, however, it can be worked out and corrected.
Also, putting your foot down and saying, "I will not be treated this way," is not automatically b+@%~ing and whining, nor should it be framed as such. Players have rights. Standing up to the DM when he encroaches on those rights is a player's duty, just as much as it's any human being's duty to stand up for themselves when wronged in any other arena.
You appear to have the inability to understand the difference between "prefers" and "also enjoys".
I quite understand the meaning of "prefers." It's still entirely to prefer Exalted but also enjoy Call of Cthulhu, which is the only game you can find a group for at the moment.
You used the word "cheater".
To define a term that means "cheater." Just as I would use the word "idiot" to define "nincompoop."
The term "munchkin" is jargon used to frame a specific type of problem. It is also an expletive and an inherently judgmental term. That is its meaning, its fundamental purpose.
Sharing ideas?
An idea is only as good as the logical support behind it. If you're not willing to see an idea's fundamental premises attacked with gusto in analyzing its actual worth, if you're not willing to support that idea with sound and valid logic, then you're not actually willing to share that idea.
Not all ideas are created equal. Not all opinions are created equal.
I definitely think that for some groups core + expanded universe of books is appropriate. Some of these groups either use a social contract to prevent the more egregious broken stuff from getting in the game or they just don't care and bend/break the rules as much as they can while still having fun.
Other groups do well with a core only approach. Yes core only is unbalanced even with the various patches the Paizo provided. Yes core only tends to break down after 12th-15th (something that expanded books do not fix). Yes certain classes are by design less powerful than others.
However core only games often mean less DM prep time. They can focus on maximizing the utility of the core classes and spells and if they want to they can even boot out egregious core spells and/or modify the classes to fit their campaign style.
I personally like running core only games because the limited cleric spell list (pathfinder core) limits their ability to go CoDzilla (DMM + Persistent spell are definitely sketchy feats), the druid is good but not completely overpowering (contrary to 3.x druids), the noncasters and low progression casters are pretty well balanced against each other, and I just need to monitor/nerf anyone playing a wizard.
In contrast if I allow core pathfinder + full expanded I need to worry about alot of unbalanced spells and prc combos that make the quadratic classes (wizard, cleric, druid) even more powerful than they already are. Just because Complete Warrior or Complete Scoundrel give rogues and fighters additional options does not mean that complete arcane and complete divine don't ratchet up the power of the wizard/initiate of the sevenfold veils/incantrix builds or cleric/radiant servant/contemplative builds.
Now if the 3.x expanded books boosted the linear classes without exacerbating the problems with the quadratic classes I would be gung-ho but it's pretty clear that the power boost is pretty much universal.
Plus prep time for mid to high level opponents is already a total pain in the ass. If I need to reference 20+ books in a given session then the cost-benefit ratio is substantially reduced for me. For other DMs preptime is less of an issue so I say go ahead and include a ton of extra stuff if you want/need to.
Players are entitled to not be treated like crap. Meanwhile, DMs have no right to treat players like crap. Shooting down players' ideas and desires shot down for no reason or explanation other than, "Because I said so," is firmly within the 'treating players like crap' header and outside the rights of any DM and any human being.
No, it isn't - for the reason that the DM knows a great deal more about the world than the player, and is entitled to not reveal everything about the world to the player, especially if it would spoil the the game for the other players.
I will, however, concede that any rulings about what is and is not permitted should ideally be made before the game starts. Once it is there, the DM does not need to justify themselves as to why it is there. For example, if the DM bans certain a prestige class of secret assassins because they form the 'bad guys' of the campaign, and half the campaign is finding this out, he has every right to say 'the Black Mantis Ghost Killer PrC is out of bounds to PCs ...' right at the outset and not justify it. Likewise a smart DM will also ban several other PrCs and other things, and not justify them either so as not to give the game away.
"Because I said so" is not treating your players like crap. It can be trying to create a good game for your players. Sometimes, it takes trust between players and DMs to make a good game; if you trust and respect your DM you take "because I said so" and live with it. That isn't to say that a DM shouldn't trust and respect their players either - they should. If a player has an idea the DM isn't sure of, he should hear the player out and not just knee-jerk.
|
No, they aren't. They are -only- entitled to choose not to play with that GM.The rule is "What the GM says goes and if the GM says too much stupid crap, everyone goes". No one is entitled to anything more than not playing.
Wow. I have to be honest, I would not want you as my DM. Not because I think I should get anything I want, but you seem, from that post, not one that wants to actually work with you players. And thats work with, no give into.
Players arent children. They do deserve more than the "because I said so" answer.
In our current campaign, we sat down and talked about a few rules changes that made sense. No fiats from the DM nor entitlement from players.
We even sat down, players and DM and talked to a player who was really determined to go to "frenzied berserker" PRC. The DM could have simply said no, but it worked much better when it was discussed. His character turned out better in the long run.
Sometimes I'm happy that none of my players has actively read the core rulebook entirely, and none of them indulge in any kind of tabletop game too much. It automatically keeps their builds away from munchkinry or powergaming.
What's even better, sometimes, if I tell a player how they could optimize their character a little more, they refuse to take the advice because they don't want them to be min-maxed or anything. And I love them for this.
I know its hard not to go into optimizing your build too much, when you know how to make it more powerful. Which is why i think of a specific character theme before i build the character, some sort of unusual fighting style that will take a build that eventually can't be too powerful. That way I come up with extremely stylish characters that are not overpowered.
So yeah it's a matter of players. Wether they know how to minmax or not. Try to encourage them to keep away from maxed out builds. After all it gets boring quickly if your party just grinds through everything like paper.
And if they won't, max out encounters you send against them and let them taste their own medicine. Oh, and lower their XP reward for each.
|
|
I said a player isn't entitled to an explanation. I never said a GM shouldn't be open to player input. There's a big difference between the two.
In point of fact, my favorite game to GM is Feng Shui. If you've never played it, it encourages the GM to be -very- open to player input (far more than I've ever seen any DnD GM be).
You would still be wrong. AGain, players arent children, and "because I said so" isnt a valid explanation.
To those claiming that 3e sponsered player entitlement and power creep...
....UHHHHHHHH...
Did you ever actually play 2e? Because I don't think you have. I don't know of anyone who played 2e that can claim there was no power creep or "player entitlement" without some serious nostalgia goggles. Hell, look at Complete Book of Elven Wankery, in which elves got two kits that were flat out 200% better then anything else with basically zero drawbacks. I think the Bladesinger - a fighter+mage (Not fighter/mage, but flat out both leveling higher then either could seperately) had the big drawback of "He's special!"
DMs complaining about players having "entitlement" has existed since before D&D began. 3e or 3.5 or hell, even 2e didn't bring that along.
As for your party being overpowered, it's kinda hard to judge without knowing what the characters themselves are. That said, the biggest game breakers are still in the Core book (Looking at you natural spell, divine power). Tome of Battle really isn't overpowered, and Incarnum really isn't overpowered, it's just kinda quirky. I'm tempted to ask what builds your characters are using, if just to see if they're pulling a fast one on you.
Are people still arguing with LT?
Honestly guys, a brick wall is a brick wall :|
To those claiming that 3e sponsered player entitlement and power creep...
....UHHHHHHHH...
Did you ever actually play 2e? Because I don't think you have. I don't know of anyone who played 2e that can claim there was no power creep or "player entitlement" without some serious nostalgia goggles. Hell, look at Complete Book of Elven Wankery, in which elves got two kits that were flat out 200% better then anything else with basically zero drawbacks. I think the Bladesinger - a fighter+mage (Not fighter/mage, but flat out both leveling higher then either could seperately) had the big drawback of "He's special!"
DMs complaining about players having "entitlement" has existed since before D&D began. 3e or 3.5 or hell, even 2e didn't bring that along.
As for your party being overpowered, it's kinda hard to judge without knowing what the characters themselves are. That said, the biggest game breakers are still in the Core book (Looking at you natural spell, divine power). Tome of Battle really isn't overpowered, and Incarnum really isn't overpowered, it's just kinda quirky. I'm tempted to ask what builds your characters are using, if just to see if they're pulling a fast one on you.
I don't think any hardcore 1e/2e player can say with a straight face there wasn't power creep in either version with later releases.
1e had Unearthed Arcana (which a large number of people decided to ignore)
2e had the explosion of kits (the elf wankery was strong in 2e) + specialty priests (tons of FR wankery here) and later on had the ultimate 2e toolkit for min/maxing in Skillz & PowerZ
That isn't to say you had to play with all the brown books in 2e or abuse the hell out of Skills and Powers.
By a similar token you don't have to include all the cheese filled goodness in the complete series or the FR series in 3.x. Now unfortunately it is a given that 3.x core rules has a lot of balance issues and some very very broken spells in core but adding to that with additional crunch when you can also go with the strategy of culling bad crunch from the game isn't always a fun or easy task.
Ultimately I think most groups just wing it and come to a consensus on what's egregiously broken and what's acceptable without codifying all the exceptions and houserules.
I disagree. A player should get more of an explanation than 'I'm the DM and I say so.' The very least an explanation should be is 'There is a special reason relating to the campaign, and you will find out in play.'
I said a player isn't entitled to an explanation.
This is a ridiculous strawman, this "the DM refuses to give an explanation" thing. In all these cases, the DM gives a simple explanation, which is usually "I think that option is overpowered" - or variants, like "In my game you can't just take prestige classes as a choice each level, you have to join a specific in-game org to get training or whatnot to that end." But I've never heard anyone say "because I say so." It's "because I read the same CharOp thread you did, and it's totally abusable. And because I say so."
Now if the player disagrees, they're welcome to say "but I don't think it's unbalanced because of X, Y, Z..." But if the DM isn't convinced, it's their place to say "Well, when I run a game I'm the final authority."
But it's more than just the DM being the final authority (which I would hope wasn't in debate but apparently in some people's mind it is). It's the default expectations. Sure in 2e there were kits, but back then the default expectation was "you ask the DM before using anything non-core." And magic items were what you found, you could never custom-kit out. I find the default expectation now is that "Well of course I can use anything in any book... If I have a level to spend, or gold to spend, I can get anything I can find." I guess if the DM really objects he can say something, but the default is 'yes unless told not to,' not 'no unless explicitly allowed.'
And huzzah to LL's analysis above.
...The Pathfinder core rules are still one of the more broken books out there... Tome of Battle is one of the most important sourcebooks to actually fix the game...
Regarding almost this entire post... since I've been smacked down on several occasions for insulting others, I'm going to just have to ask you to use your imagination on this one.