the guy who thinks the summoner is the coolest class ever and has wanted to play a class like that since he first started gaming
that's called settling, the summoner is the best summoner because that is the point of the class, other classes that summon are not based entirely off of summoning, they specialize in other things, the summoner is the master summoner class.
would you enjoy playing a game where you want to play a fighter and are told you only have the option to play the warrior npc class, if you had a choice between the two i think you would choose to play the fighter
|
Then that player needs to find a game where the summoner is allowed, or talk to the DM about allowing him to play the summoner - maybe he agrees to houseruled changes to the summoner to allow the DM to be comfortable running with the summoner. Or maybe he talks the DM into creating a feat off some summoner ability he absolutely must have to allow a conjurer to approximate what he's looking for in a summoner. Or maybe he agrees that if the DM thinks his eidolon is getting out of control, the DM can choose his eidolon's evolutions to keep him in line with the power level of the rest of the party.
Either which way you approach this issue, forcing people that are already spending a lot of time preparing to DM to deal with all the fallout of a mechanic that they feel causes an issue means you may end up without a DM.
DMing is a lot of work. If your un modules or adventure paths the burden becomes a bit less, but trust me, it's still a lot of work and time. If I can lessen that workload as a DM and NOT have to structure every fight around dealing with a particular imbalance in party structure with a simple rule change, I will do it. And if a player does not like that choice I make, they are free to leave. I'd prefer if they'd be big enough to talk to me about it first and we'd see if we could come to a compromise. But forcing a DM to accept anything every published in the game world he is running is just as unfair as it would be for the DM to make everyone's player build choices - and I think it's more unfair than limiting those choices slightly in order to avoid a problem.
The best advice when you have any problem in tabletop gaming: Talk to you DM and fellow players and try to work out a solution. Laying down ultimatums either way is rarely going to do more than split a group apart.
i think this thread has reached a point of me vs the DM's out there and while i might understand how you guys feel i guess we might have to agree to disagree.
|
i have always enjoyed playing DnD and i love pathfinder but i have to admit one thing i cant stand is when anyone refers to something in the game as "broken". Sure many DM's chose to remove something from their game if they feel it doesn't work right but in my honest opinion how can you truly enjoy a game if you don't trust the game to work?
My group follows one major rule, If it is in one of the core books (meaning any book released by Paizo) then it is always allowed without question.
How can you comfortably play in a group if you cant assume what you look at in the books is an option for you to use?
How can you truly enjoy a character if it wasn't your first choice but that option isn't allowed in some ones games?
i just feel that the term "Broken" just ruins any real fun i might have in a group, something might seem powerful or wonky to you but others might feel it works just fine.
+1
|
The way I play D&D and PF it's something like two games in one.
There is the non-combat part. Here, role-playing trumps written rules, Rule O dances around happily, creative use of skills is rewarded, the story flows. Here, the difference between a Cleric and a Truenamer is none. We don't let the rules to get in the way of having fun.
Then a combat happens, and like in Final Fantasy games there's swirl and we're in a tactical wargame. Here, rules must be direct and certain, handwaving leaves bad taste in the mouth and somebody who talks for 5 minutes about how he swings his sword is yelled at "just roll the dice !". Here, sub-par class design, broken combos and hazy rules may contribute to GM/player frustration just as much as sleazy decisions and lack of tactical skill.
I don't like munchkin optimizers in the RPG part "here's an Excel chart of my Diplomacy modifiers scoured from 40 rulebooks, I am at +56 and I want to buy this kingdom, rules say that I can" and I don't like crap rules wording and imbalance in the combat part "so, your Swashbuckler is dealing ... 22 damage ... at level 10 ... with a full attack. That's ... a lot. Really."
I wonder if anyone ever thought the Belt of Battle wasn't broken.... er, excuse me... "unbalanced" or "easily abused". (Is that better? Means the same thing to me, anyway...)
That's one item I outright banned from my games... and it was not from a 3rd party publisher. It was in a book published by WotC.
|
I have to agree with most of the posts here - broken does get used too often but there are exceptions
Pathfinder does not have the problems that 3.5 did but then there are only a small number of books compared to 3.5
there were many things that were either broken in 3.5 or became broken with all the books that came out - the obvious one is the shifter class - it did not take alot with this class to be so powerful even with the average gamer (not a min/max player) to dominate over everyone else and spoil everyones fun - that made it broken & there are many other examples that I wont bother to mention
So while I agree it is overused it does have its place just cause it is in a book does not mean it is not broken
|
|
things get bad when designers forget that things dont exist in a bubble, 3.5 had a bad case of this
for example:
How to Kill A Tarrasque in 20 Easy Levels
"4.8 * average 232 damage on each hit = average 1,113.6 damage in total. The Tarrasque has damage reduction 15/epic, however, subtracting a total of 75 damage from five hits, but that's still an amazing 1,038.6 damage inflicted on the Tarrasque's hit point total of 858 anyway. At this point, the Tarrasque should be down to -180 or -181 hit points, meaning it will be back in action in 5 rounds, and that's why I hope you've got a means to cast Wish right then and there. "
again, its 3.5 so the numbers are a little different now, but the principle is there. also that build can be done without 9 swords, using lion totem barbarian for pounce
also not everything printed has a use in every campaign, nor should it be allowed. I don't let people in an Eberron game use feats from the Forgotten Realms core book. a DM should feel free to declare "that doesnt exist in my world". I'm much more of a "let 99% of stuff into my game" DM (screw all the classes/maneuvers/wanna-be anime bullsh!t and all but 3 feats from book of 9 swords. I keep the weapons tho), but if I say "nothing from splat book x" I expect no b!&!%in about it.
the worst part is you normally end up with 1 person who out shines from some exploit, and it takes away from everyone elses fun. so banning "that 1 feat that my character's concept is totally based around" is worth everyone else having fun vs just you having fun while everyone else feels bored/useless
I think a lot of the conversation has gotten away from the use of the term "broken" and more about DMs taking material out of their games. I will address both.
As a DM, I take material out of my game if I don't want to deal with it. When I had players who wanted to play psionic characters, I told them I wasn't doing it because I didn't want to use psionic creatures in my game. If I had someone who wanted to play a gnome really badly in a game based on Lord of the Rings, I'd do the same thing for a different reason. The main reason I didn't allow psionics in my game was that manifesting them didn't provoke an attack of opportunity, which I felt was the main balancing issue for casters. When the other psionics books came out and didn't change this, I stood by my decision. So people couldn't play psionics in my game. So what? Preserving the overall cohesiveness of the setting to ensure enjoyment for all players is my job, and if that means you're all cavemen then by the will of the gods you will all be sharpening wood and putting stone point bits in the end of it for your weapons. My players tend to have some faith in me, so when I propose something, they tend to go along with it. If it's so out there they lose trust in me, I'll be able to tell and I'll sacrifice a bit of the element of surprise to regain their trust by explaining what I'm trying to do.
One issue I had was a breach of trust with WotC during the days of 3.5. When you can't trust your books, after all, what can you trust? I ended up making side by side evaluations, double-checking numbers and plain playtesting to evaluate each book. When I actually found 3rd party books (back when 3rd party D&D books were unbalanced as hell) that were better balanced than the core product, I started doing this with all of the products that were released. If you don't know much about game design, I suppose you wouldn't have much of a choice but to use all core material, but expecting all of it to be balanced for play with all other material is a pipe dream in most cases, and unfortunately a fallacy: Material does not need to be balanced properly to be released, even by the parent company of the product. My brief foray into 4th edition reinforced this into an very solid concept. I already know that the APG alternate classes are imbalanced relative to each other, and I will likely not be allowing all of them. As far as feats and spells go, I am willing to allow them simply because I do not believe they will have as severe of an impact, and it's honestly way too much material to sift through. I'll just figure it out on the spot if it becomes too crazy.
As far as using the term "broken" goes, I tend to use it to mean "Something that does not serve its intended purpose". This can be due to an excessive degree of benefits to drawbacks, something that plain doesn't work, or something that is excessively weak (My friends and I used to refer to both kobolds and half-elves in 3.5 as "broken" races in a humorous manner, and it ended up becoming an alternate meaning of the word. This was back in 2004-2006 mind you...). In other words, it's a portion of the game where the system breaks down, hence it is broken. Provided the definition remains uncorrupted, I see no issue with a continued use of the word.
everyone has something in the game that they think is overpowered but if everyone banned those things then so much material would be lost.If I'm running a horror campaign ala Call of Cthulhu then I'd literally ban most PC classes and have people playing just ordinary folk. It's not the diversity of the rules than makes the game fun, but the story.
In other words, if the game is run well, the story compelling, and the women attractive, who really cares about The Summoner being banned?
But you can't play an attractive woman, they're broken.
I agree and disagree. I think that "broken" is a lame reason to not include something. Conversely, the "but it's in the books" argument smacks of whining and generally leads to munchkinism.
The person running the game gets to say what's in and what's out. That's part of the social contract. The point isn't to find good or bad reasons, the point is to find games where the reasons he or she gives mesh well with your thoughts on the game and style of play.
|
I get along with my RL DM's if they give me an actually reason why I can't do something.
For instances, two of my freinds and I wanted to play triplets(going Dragon Disciple, Red/White/Blue Dragons ;) ). I asked my current DM at the time if we could play triplets, and he said no because at the time period of the game, twins were rare and one of them was usually a still birth.
I agreed. Because it made sense.
My other DM though, we know better than to try and go all powergammery/munchkiny on him. He's better at it. ;)
I agree and disagree. I think that "broken" is a lame reason to not include something. Conversely, the "but it's in the books" argument smacks of whining and generally leads to munchkinism.
The person running the game gets to say what's in and what's out. That's part of the social contract. The point isn't to find good or bad reasons, the point is to find games where the reasons he or she gives mesh well with your thoughts on the game and style of play.
This is the essence of Rule Zero. A high handed DM who wields Rule Zero rather unwieldy will upset his players, but a fair minded DM who gets the buy-in of his players and strives for the enjoyment of all will find that tweaking the RAW is a fun and satisfying experience.
Some will say Rule Zero is broken. I prefer to say that the term "broken" is broken. As is the term "balanced." All three are almost entirely subjective concepts, and as such are neither provable nor even able to be tested. In the end, if the group at the table is having a good time playing D&D (or Pathfinder), then the whole dang experience is "fixed" just the right way.
I disagree with most of the posters here it seems.
I think one of the lessons learned from the huge unmanageable rule sprawl which is D&D 3.5 is that all new non-core rules should only be allowed in explicitly. It has nothing to do with whether it's "broken" per se or not.
So with the new APG - my players know it's not all suddenly fair game in our campaign. We defined legal sources at the beginning and anything that comes in has to be let in specifically.
It's not because I dislike anything in it or think any one thing in isolation is "broken". But what happens, and this happened in 3.5, is that eventually there are enough rules that you can super-duper-optimize every single character. You sub in racial abilities and alternate class abilities and pick and choose magic items and blah blah blah until you have first level PCs that kill ogres with impunity.
And that ruins a lot of the stories you can want to tell with the game. It also makes GMing harder. Pathfinder already suffers from this some - PC damage output has gone way up from 3e->3.5e->Pathfinder and so balancing encounters is very difficult, as smaller critters aren't a threat you have to go for larger and larger ones and get into the "whoever wins initiative is going to kill the other" problem, which means more fatalities for PCs as well.
I think the Pathfinder designers realize that and that's why the APG says so explicitly in multiple places that the rule are optional and DMs should evaluate each part and decide on its inclusion.
Right now I'm running a pirate based campaign. So I allowed a number of optional rulesets specifically tailored to that - firearms, the Swashbuckler class from Tome of Secrets, dueling rules from Sinister Adventures... Rules are a tool to help create the flavor you want in the game. "Everything goes" is like puring salt, ketchup, maple syrup, and curry all into your same dish because "someone likes each one of those." It sounds like a good sentiment, but to an experienced chef/GM, it's actually a terrible idea.
Hmm you loose internet access for several days and all the discussions you were having peter out. Well in any case.
It is rather powerful considering that one can use it to cast a spell for the cost of a swift action but three of them costs only about 1000GP more than a lesser metamagic rod of quicken spell. Though there is the having to deal with belt restriction and having three belts. It is also nice for people that want to attack in melee as they can move and attack in one round. But while powerful it is no candle of invocation.I wonder if anyone ever thought the Belt of Battle wasn't broken.... er, excuse me... "unbalanced" or "easily abused". (Is that better? Means the same thing to me, anyway...)
That's one item I outright banned from my games... and it was not from a 3rd party publisher. It was in a book published by WotC.
I wasn't even thinking about casting spells, actually. I was mainly thinking of the Duskblade in my group using it to get 10 attacks in one round and owning -anything- I could reasonably throw at the party.
We had to houserule that you couldn't use all three charges at the same time and take away some of his Ultimate Feats feats.
It seems some things -are- broken, er "easily abused".
My point is that just because something's published in a shiny book doesn't mean it's balanced for play. Paizo has been generally better than WotC about that so far, but nothing's necessarily a given.
|
if an errata is made for something in the game then we follow the errata but until one is made we follow the books.
interesting. So, if you identify a rules problem then you wouldn't change it until the designers identified the same problem and made the change official?
this is something I don't get as it seems to me to be the total opposite of what happened in Paizo`s open playtest when we were officially invited to test and critizise the designer's suggestions.
So to me it seems as if the designers trust us to be able to judge, comment and critizise on their rule system. And if I'm able to do this in an official playtest why shouldn't I be able to do the same with the finished product?
I don't like the word "broken" either because it's not especially helpful when it comes to discussing rules matters. But I wouldn't go so far as to declare any rule system as untouchable for anyone except the designers themselves.
There are three uses of the word "broken."
The first is when something is broken due to shaky rules, or loopholes, or general lawyer BS. These are stupid and should be terminated with extreme prejudice.
The second is when something actually is broken. Divine metamagic, shapeshifting spells, druid wild shape + natural spell. These are things that drastically effect the game and force the DM to alter it specifically to deal with these people. YOu can sit back and go "Well a GOOD DM would plan around this, heh," or you can realize that having to deal with this is not fun for the DM, and is not fun for the other players.
The third is what I see most often - things that aren't broken. The warlock, Tome of Battle, psionics in 99.9% of cases. In many cases, "broken" is really just a code word for "I don't like it." Warlocks aren't broken, they're actually not all that strong, but you'll find no small number of people who argue that they're completely broken and change the game horribly and can never say their reasons why. Tome of Battle did alter the power level of the game, but not in the way it's detractors claim - what it did is make the game more fun and more playable for martial classes at higher levels, and if anything made the game easier to DM for since, unlike the fighter, you can give the warblade a challenge that he has a fairly good chance of beating without having to dumb it down for him.
I think broken is bandied around a lot more then it should be, but I think the reason is less hyperbole and more people equating their personal feelings with "alters the game drastically."
|
|
my real problem with banning things really comes down to one person namely the DM decides and everyone else doesn't actually get a real vote, sure they can protest but in the end the DM usually sticks to their gut reaction.
i will say that i am much more comfortable if everyone in the gaming group agrees on something needing to be altered or even banned i just don't like the "this is my game and i am the DM and you cant play it"
The GM has complete control of his game, and that's just the way it is. Usually, a good GM will only modify the rules to increase everyone's overall enjoyment. If everyone had a vote, it would be pure chaos. If a certain PC is significantly more powerful than another, for whatever reason, something should be done. This is because it won't be fun for the other players who feel they are "outclassed" by the overpowered PC, it won't be fun for the overpowered PC in time because he won't be appropriately challenged, and it's not fun for the GM because he has to do a lot more work to try to appropriately challenge these two parties at the same time. The GM can and should tinker with the rules when he sees fit to increase enjoyment. As a "rules" guy myself, I don't think it should be done often, but there is a place for it in the game.
However, always keep in mind that while the GM has all of the power of things that happen in his game, you have the power to choose whether or not to play in that game. If you feel that your GM is being unreasonable, talk with him. And if that doesn't work, you can always find a different group.
How can you comfortably play in a group if you cant assume what you look at in the books is an option for you to use?Lets say I was in a PF only game with you ... would you or the other players begrudge me for playing one of the following characters :
- DC optimized Save or Suck/Die slinger (probably human fey bloodline sorcerer) with metamagic rods of bouncing and persistent spell.
- Summoner with an Eidolon which outdamages all the melee PCs and has higher AC than them to boot.
- A fighter (or hell, an Eidolon) which abuses quickdraw with spellstoring weapons.
Really ... none of you would mind?
in our games no we wouldn't stop you from using those options, just because you find a way to make a character more powerful using the rules doesn't mean you "Broke" anything, you just were really smart.
i helped with the play test just like everyone else but i never worry about how powerful something feels i worry more about underpowered options, if there is no point in taking something that is when i make a suggestion to alter it but i never think it is fair to remove material.
as far as i can remember i don't think we ever had a problem with an overpowered character in our games.
the closest thing we ever had to this was one player was underpowered and that was all because he rolled nearly minimum on every HD roll for the entire characters 20 levels.
...Right now I'm running a pirate based campaign. So I allowed a number of optional rulesets specifically tailored to that - firearms, the Swashbuckler class from Tome of Secrets, dueling rules from Sinister Adventures... Rules are a tool to help create the flavor you want in the game. "Everything goes" is like puring salt, ketchup, maple syrup, and curry all into your same dish because "someone likes each one of those." It sounds like a good sentiment, but to an experienced chef/GM, it's actually a terrible idea.
+1
Game designers create products that will appeal to the widest possible group of customers, but not every feat, class, spell, god, etc., is appropriate for every campaign. If you're really a good player who adds fun to the game, then the DM will be more likely to make the next campaign something that suits your character concept. I've seen it, and done it, a thousand times.
Right now I'm running a pirate based campaign. So I allowed a number of optional rulesets specifically tailored to that - firearms, the Swashbuckler class from Tome of Secrets, dueling rules from Sinister Adventures... Rules are a tool to help create the flavor you want in the game. "Everything goes" is like puring salt, ketchup, maple syrup, and curry all into your same dish because "someone likes each one of those." It sounds like a good sentiment, but to an experienced chef/GM, it's actually a terrible idea.
+3
Very apt comparison.
|
"so, your Swashbuckler is dealing ... 22 damage ... at level 10 ... with a full attack. That's ... a lot. Really."
22? I should be so lucky. I'm in a game where a level 8 swashbuckler type character can't break 10 most of the time. And yes that's per round...not per hit. Then he looks at me funny when I do 40ish damage a round.
|
|
As far as broken goes...in 3.5 yes, yes there was broken stuff. You let me use whatever I want in a 3.5 game and you think nothing is broken, I will make you cry. Hell for S&G I made a pounce uber charger for a one shot. I didn't even use a horse and lance to make things "fair". I was doing 900 damage a hit for 5 attacks. With the boots that lets me make a course correction on a charge 3 times per day (I had 3 of these) and a flying item with lots of init boosting item, the game went like this...okay combat starts, I charge, combat ends. NOBODY had fun when using such broken combination of rules (and this isn't even remotely the worst thing you can do). Remember pun pun is rules legal (and that 1% of pscionics that's broken).
In PF, i'm seeing it happen...but with one splat book, it's of course not even close to the level of stupidty of all splat books of 3.5 can reach. But there are a few signs that worry me.
Course all the groups I play with allows whatever you like...with the understanding of you make something that the DM doesn't like, rocks fall, you die(no save).
You seem to be playing with weird people Cold Napalm ;)
I think I remember reading a post saying you had a group TPK on the first encounter of Kingmaker. Quite hard to accomplish!
Never really had major issues with power gamers in the games I ran but I'm rather clear on the type of game that I'll run. One should expect some restrictions depending on the setting and I couldn't care less if it causes conflict and that I have to kill a player's idea for a character.
The wish to play a character is usually pretty fickle while the stuff I spent hours to prepare will last! Same goes for mechanical stuff but being able to justify the restrictions is always primordial.
Some stuff really bends the stability in the rules and they should be avoided. Thankfully I don't have to babysit my players for that aspect, mostly.
I ran a one-shot last week and had a player create a fighter 1/barbarian 1 with 20 str, a great sword and power attack. I had to adjust everything because of this character. It was touchy and this is with a level 2 group..
To answer the OP: The trust has been destroyed long ago for many longtime 3.5 players. It is always better to question. Restrictions are often pretty limited in most games(in my experience, anyway). Don't create your character before talking to the GM and you won't be disappointed. Some stuff deemed broken will have a profound impact on the combat aspect of the game and it can ruin the fun for the GM/Other players involved.
so you say rather than be a DM and prepare your game based on your players you would rather just remove something because your lazy
Yes? If my players want to put the time into preparation that I don't have, I'll gladly play... Else, I'll ban wathever I want to make my life easier as a DM - it's a game, not a chore, nor an obligation - I have to work and want to do something else with my life than spending all my evenings in my books.
Boken means "I don't have the time to optimize every encounter and npc like you have the time to optimize your sole character and, please, respect that I don't owe you the time that would be required to make the game challenging for you if I were to allow this option."
|
|
There are three uses of the word "broken."
The first is when something is broken due to shaky rules, or loopholes, or general lawyer BS. These are stupid and should be terminated with extreme prejudice.
The second is when something actually is broken. Divine metamagic, shapeshifting spells, druid wild shape + natural spell. These are things that drastically effect the game and force the DM to alter it specifically to deal with these people. YOu can sit back and go "Well a GOOD DM would plan around this, heh," or you can realize that having to deal with this is not fun for the DM, and is not fun for the other players.
The third is what I see most often - things that aren't broken. The warlock, Tome of Battle, psionics in 99.9% of cases. In many cases, "broken" is really just a code word for "I don't like it." Warlocks aren't broken, they're actually not all that strong, but you'll find no small number of people who argue that they're completely broken and change the game horribly and can never say their reasons why. Tome of Battle did alter the power level of the game, but not in the way it's detractors claim - what it did is make the game more fun and more playable for martial classes at higher levels, and if anything made the game easier to DM for since, unlike the fighter, you can give the warblade a challenge that he has a fairly good chance of beating without having to dumb it down for him.
I think broken is bandied around a lot more then it should be, but I think the reason is less hyperbole and more people equating their personal feelings with "alters the game drastically."
Yup. Most people just don't really understand what broken means.
The most frustrating part is usually when 2 people cannot come to the same conclusion that something is broken. If a character can do 10000 damage as a free action, without possibility of a miss, most people will say it is broken. But a few won't, and trying to convince them can be supremely difficult. Vice versa applies Some people still think Fireball is the most powerful spell a wizard has.
Something that is hilariously terrible is also broken, but on the opposite side. Summoner's Call feat for example...
i have always enjoyed playing DnD and i love pathfinder but i have to admit one thing i cant stand is when anyone refers to something in the game as "broken". Sure many DM's chose to remove something from their game if they feel it doesn't work right but in my honest opinion how can you truly enjoy a game if you don't trust the game to work?
My group follows one major rule, If it is in one of the core books (meaning any book released by Paizo) then it is always allowed without question.
How can you comfortably play in a group if you cant assume what you look at in the books is an option for you to use?
How can you truly enjoy a character if it wasn't your first choice but that option isn't allowed in some ones games?
i just feel that the term "Broken" just ruins any real fun i might have in a group, something might seem powerful or wonky to you but others might feel it works just fine.
I think gamers should use the terms
broken: Most(over 50%) of DM's would have an issue with this feat/class/etc. I only normally use this term for theoretical optimization classes that were never meant to see play. Sadly I have had a player or two try to sneak these into my games.or
broken for my group: In the poster's group the feat/class/etc is an issue, and they can ask others how to handle it.
I know I have been issues with things in the past that I can deal with now just because I have become a better DM.
Sadly the constant use of the term broken makes me want to assume someone is whining and my first thought is to disprove the theory.
I enjoy horror RPGs such as Call of Cthulhu. I really enjoyed Monte Cooke's D20 version of the game, but it wasn't popular amongst most horror or COC gamers I ran into. "D20=D&D=Power gaming" was their attitude.
Unfortunately, this discussion does seem to validate their POV a bit. I can't understand why players would care so much that their combo of death got nerfed, but I'm seeing that to many that takes away all the fun.
I don't get that attitude. It's just foreign to me.
What about the non-power-gamer that really just likes a class/archetype should they be punished/restricted because others have posted min/maxed versions of the class on message boards? I'm think specifically of the summoner right now because that is the hot topic, but it can be applied to all classes that DM's feel may be unbalanced.
I think being unduly restricted as a player sucks, and can make the game less fun (in line with the OP). However, I think the DM should be able to restrict things for story reasons (there are no ninjas in this part of the world, dwarves were wiped out in a war two millennium ago, etc). I also think that the DM is the referee to make sure one person's character isn't ruining the game for another player. So where does that leave us? Open dialog and group brainstorming can go a long way. If as a DM you really don't like class X because of its potential to be abused, as opposed to outright banning it work with the player to see what their plan is. If you feel that the character may be more powerful than other characters suggest modifications to tone the character down, but that don't detract from the overall concept. This should satisfy both parties . . . as long as the "breakablity" wasn't the person's sole reason for playing that class.
I think banning something just because you don't like it or are afraid of it does everyone a disservice. Who knows it may not be that bad after you see it in action. And the interesting thing is if you search the boards long enough you will find arguments for most the classes being "broken".
I hate lawyer players.
There is nothing wrong with a rules lawyer as long as it is dont for the benefit of the group. When you are just trying to make your own character better or game the system, then it is an issue. Some DM's need rules lawyers whether they know it or not.
we have always used the rule that if the creators make it then it is in the game no questions asked even in 3.0 and 3.5 DnD.
i DM once in a while and as far as i am concerned everyone's enjoyment is as important as each others and just because i think something is too powerful doesn't mean it is fair to any one who wants to use it if i just throw it out and say too bad i didn't like it.
if you can find a loophole more power to ya, i think that if you find a combination of race/class/feat that no one would have thought would have been powerful but is really powerful than awesome, good work.
Have you not seen the rules debates for "misread" rules? The other issue is challenging the party. Do you want to run over every encounter because the DM does not have time to adjust monsters for the combo that is to much for stock monsters? Some DM's like myself have time to adjust to things so I can normally challenge players anyway, but other DM's have a lot less time to account for every possible combination of what can be put together so they may have to ban certain things. I don't like banned things either, but I am not going to ask a DM to give up all his personal time to look through books to find a way to challenge Simon the Super Character.
a good DM would let you play what is in the book and design a game around it, not give up and say no.
This is where my quote from the previous post about lack of time due to real life responsibilities comes in. I know you did not have a chance to read it, but I wanted to mention it again to make sure you saw it.
I agree. I'm banning The Summoner too. Can't believe they allowed that one.
Did you play it. I hate paper bans.
Paper bans=banning something because of how it looks on paper.
I wonder if anyone ever thought the Belt of Battle wasn't broken.... er, excuse me... "unbalanced" or "easily abused". (Is that better? Means the same thing to me, anyway...)
That's one item I outright banned from my games... and it was not from a 3rd party publisher. It was in a book published by WotC.
I never though it was that bad unless I misunderstood it. I think it was underpriced though. From what I understood you could get a full round action once day for free.
|
|
I agree. I'm banning The Summoner too. Can't believe they allowed that one.Did you play it. I hate paper bans.
Paper bans=banning something because of how it looks on paper.
I agree - any game I DM will house rule the summoner more closely to the original draft - I think it was nerfed too much but thats just my opinion
Maybe classes, races, rules, or magic items are banned because they don't fit a setting. Not all settings are stardust magic like Golarion. If you are going for a pulpy game then maybe only human races, cut back on the classes that have access to magic, etc. Certain special abilities might not be fit certain genre's or setting. I really liked how the early editions of (A)D&D used optional rules. Optional rules are good because then the players don't neccessarily feel entitled to everything in a book.
i don't have a problem with banning something because of setting, if your setting doesn't have a place for a class or race or feat, that's fine, what i hate is banning it because you think its "broken"
i don't have a problem with banning something because of setting, if your setting doesn't have a place for a class or race or feat, that's fine, what i hate is banning it because you think its "broken"
If the super build is used against your group by the DM do you think that is fair? One thing my players know is that they and the NPC have access to the same material. This alone keeps most players in check.
|
|
in our games no we wouldn't stop you from using those options, just because you find a way to make a character more powerful using the rules doesn't mean you "Broke" anything, you just were really smart.
i helped with the play test just like everyone else but i never worry about how powerful something feels i worry more about underpowered options, if there is no point in taking something that is when i make a suggestion to alter it but i never think it is fair to remove material.
Sometimes, it's a good idea to remove broken material from the game. Divine Metamagic from Complete Divine was perhaps the worst feat in 3.5 and the total downfall of one of my campaigns because of how badly one PC abused it. That was a campaign where I banned nothing whatsoever, and the two party powergamers caused the campaign to implode around 16th level (I had planned for it to run until 25th). There is a point where it becomes necessary as a DM to ban unfair options for the sake of other players. For example, I recently quit a campaign because my Rogue/Assassin was being completely upstaged by a Druid's animal companion; it sucks to be made obsolete by the secondary feature of another class, something the Eidolon seems to do to Fighters and Barbarians*.
Also, being able to make a ridiculously powerful character doesn't require that much brainpower; it just takes a quick hop over to Brilliant Gameologists and using one of their builds.
*Or so it seems just from reading the class. It may play out differently; I won't really know until one of my players tries it or I see it an a society event.