I have to disagree with you definition. While your example is spot on the definition is way to vague. One could apply that to a trip build and call it broken when it is very much not the case. A trip build is useless on a lot of things but one could still say "A trip build forces a DM to use flying, Larger creatures, or Many legged creatures" and it still fits by your definition.
As to what I think is broken or makes something broken? Well there is very little that's full on broken in PF imo but something that makes it so one PC can fill all/most party roles and therefor be a party unto himself.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
When something is broken, that means it doesn't work as intended. Regardless of power level. If you wanted to make the Great Ultimate Weapon but accidentally missed a flaw in it that makes it worthless in an actual game scenario, it is broken. Conversely, if something has ramifications beyond its intended use (I believe many see Leadership as this) and ends up much more powerful than the intent of its creators, it's also broken.
Most people seem to use Overpowered and Broken interchangeably but they're not necessarily the same.
|
When something is broken, that means it doesn't work as intended. Regardless of power level. If you wanted to make the Great Ultimate Weapon but accidentally missed a flaw in it that makes it worthless in an actual game scenario, it is broken. Conversely, if something has ramifications beyond its intended use (I believe many see Leadership as this) and ends up much more powerful than the intent of its creators, it's also broken.
Most people seem to use Overpowered and Broken interchangeably but they're not necessarily the same.
Very well put.
"Broken" can be described as whatever the person using the term personally dislikes.
I have to disagree with you definition. While your example is spot on the definition is way to vague. One could apply that to a trip build and call it broken when it is very much not the case. A trip build is useless on a lot of things but one could still say "A trip build forces a DM to use flying, Larger creatures, or Many legged creatures" and it still fits by your definition.Yes, and no. A trip build does not Force the DM to work around it, as for one thing being tripped is not that big of a negative, and for another it only really matters in combat. Specifically, what I'm referring to are things that are so potent, they actually force the DM to change the game as it otherwise would be in a flow-breaking fashion. In my example, the question was constantly, "Where is all the Adamantine coming from?"
As to what I think is broken or makes something broken? Well there is very little that's full on broken in PF imo but something that makes it so one PC can fill all/most party roles and therefor be a party unto himself.So, a universalist wizard? Considering the range of things magic allows one to do, a high enough level wizard (about level 15) can be a tank, a healer, a skill-monkey, and a damage dealer all in one. According to your definition, a standard-class at a high enough level is broken.
No. While Wizards always have been at the upper end a wizard can not replace a whole party. Because they could not fend off a full encounter even if they can do about everything it takes them time to ramp up and if they are facing 5-6 foes they don't have that time. That and they are still more limited by magic immune monsters (not completely unable to deal with but the options are far less.) That and you vastly overstate it. While a Wizard can do many things they can not be ready to do them all at once.
Master summoner is about the only thing in PF that I would call flat broken.
As for your definition you are no changing it. You never said anything in it about in or out of combat. If you want to play that game trying to defend you over stated opinion then one could say "Then you example is not overpowered because smashing walls does little good in combat."
"Broken" can be described as whatever the person using the term personally dislikes.
Fair enough. Though throwing this around to much tends to be counter to the health of the game. As it is often misused just as much as the word "broken".
Someone who wants something that's out of balance to stay that way just throws around that statement to try to mute the conversation about balance. And while they tend to be flame wars full of over stated exaggerations conversations on balance still need to be had.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The definition of "Broken".
My personal definition would be "a combination of abilities which, if used by a player with the right amount of system mastery, can trivialize the vast majority of encounters and make the other player characters seem superfluous during an entire campaign".
I would have to say anything that removes the enjoyment of the others playing the game.
I would have to say anything that removes the enjoyment of the others playing the game.
While its a nice settlement its way to subjective. There is someone out there that can manage to get upset over anything and would call the most absurd things "removing my fun."
My DM decided to make a dungeon out of adamantine once. Our party quickly realized that there was literally 10s of millions of gold worth of adamantine here. Enough to convince us we ought to quit adventuring and spend a few months mining the area.Simply put, what does everyone think makes a character/creature/item/build/etc., broken? I'm not asking for specific examples of these, though of course people are going to give and use them in their arguments. What I'm looking for is a generalized way of defining exactly what makes something broken/over powered.
Personally, I'm of the opinion that something is broken when it forces the GM (assuming the GM doesn't abuse rule zero)to fit the game around it. As an example, I was once allowed to play an Ogre with the Advanced template. Thanks to his insane strength score and adamantine great axe, it quickly became common for him to get around every puzzle by simply smashing everything in his way. So, to make up for this, the GM had the next dungeon made of pure adamantine, which had been enchanted to be for all intents and purposes indestructible.
In other words, the GM had been forced to strain the willing suspension of disbelief in order to accomodate for my character's ludicrous strength score.
Also, something I'd like to point out. Min-Maxing, in and of itself, does not make something broken. You can min-max anything. Unless something has the potential to be, or already Is, broken, then min-maxing will simply let shine that fact.
Had a similar experience once too; we found a lost temple to platinum dragon. It was made almost entirely out of platinum. We probably would have started excavating if it wasn't for the fact that one of our guys was a Paladin (but really a Cleric rules wise) of Bahamut.
My personal definition would be "a combination of abilities which, if used by a player with the right amount of system mastery, can trivialize the vast majority of encounters and make the other player characters seem superfluous during an entire campaign".
This seems like a fitting definition.
If it's something anyone can do just by using the right build, then it's not really broken, it's just a good build.
So by your definition, something is only broken if it's... something that certain players are physically incapable of ever using no matter what build they're using? Like a spell that can only be cast if the player controlling the character was born in August?
If it's something anyone can do just by using the right build, then it's not really broken, it's just a good build.So by your definition, something is only broken if it's... something that certain players are physically incapable of ever using no matter what build they're using? Like a spell that can only be cast if the player controlling the character was born in August?
While a bit snarky I felt the same way when I saw it. That definition makes flat no sense.
It seems to me a bit more like a good definition for min-maxing. If it's something anyone can do just by using the right build, then it's not really broken, it's just a good build. If I make an elf-fighter with the right character traits, he can end up with enough skill points, feats, and access to magic items that will allow him to do pretty much anything, and still be good in combat. He's not broken; he's optimized.My personal definition would be "a combination of abilities which, if used by a player with the right amount of system mastery, can trivialize the vast majority of encounters and make the other player characters seem superfluous during an entire campaign".This seems like a fitting definition.
The part you are disregarding is "make the other player characters seem superfluous during an entire campaign". Pathfinder is a team sport. If your single character is good enough to reliably beat encounters designed for four characters, it is not simply "optimized", but "too good". IMO, of course.
I would have to say anything that removes the enjoyment of the others playing the game.While its a nice settlement its way to subjective. There is someone out there that can manage to get upset over anything and would call the most absurd things "removing my fun."
Others plural, sure any one can get upset over anything, but if all or most of the rest of those playing agree, then whatever it is has broken the campaign.
And yes it is subjective. If the entire party is made up of optimized characters, then they aren't "Broken," if one player has done that and does virtually everything in the campaign to the point where no one else is having fun, then that character is "broken."
What is "broken" in one place, isn't in another place.
My DM decided to make a dungeon out of adamantine once. Our party quickly realized that there was literally 10s of millions of gold worth of adamantine here. Enough to convince us we ought to quit adventuring and spend a few months mining the area.
We ran into a similar situation going through "The Return of the Temple of Elemental Evil." The entire adventure was so treasure poor, that when we came across a 50 foot iron bridge, we considered recovering the bridge and selling the iron. Fortunately across the bridge was a tower made of Adamantium, so we took the door. It was worth more than everything else we recovered in the entire adventure.
Its tough to have an all inclusive definition that at the same time isnt too vague...
Lets see...
Broken is anything that makes your GM wish they were not your GM...
Of course by that definition not showing up on time or having a habit of not showering for a few days or even 'someone who likes drinking a particularly pungent brand of coffee' would qualify as broken.
So we'll narrow it down just a smidge.
Broken is anything about your character that makes your GM wish they were not your GM and your party members wish they were not in your party.
How's that?
Its tough to have an all inclusive definition that at the same time isnt too vague...
Lets see...
Broken is anything that makes your GM wish they were not your GM...
Of course by that definition not showing up on time or having a habit of not showering for a few days or even 'someone who likes drinking a particularly pungent brand of coffee' would qualify as broken.
So we'll narrow it down just a smidge.
Broken is anything about your character that makes your GM wish they were not your GM and your party members wish they were not in your party.
How's that?
While don't take this as disagreeing with you it also runs into the subjective things. I have run into a couple GM's that have a irrational hate for something that by 99% of people is not close to broken (have known a GM that hated trip builds and swore up and down how broken it was.)
Its tough to have an all inclusive definition that at the same time isnt too vague...
Lets see...
Broken is anything that makes your GM wish they were not your GM...
Of course by that definition not showing up on time or having a habit of not showering for a few days or even 'someone who likes drinking a particularly pungent brand of coffee' would qualify as broken.
So we'll narrow it down just a smidge.
Broken is anything about your character that makes your GM wish they were not your GM and your party members wish they were not in your party.
How's that?
Add in the equivalent for the GM or the Adventure and you should have it covered.
The current magic item creation system.
And also, in the opposite way, the current non-magic item creation system.
From a rules perspective the following definition should work:
broken -
1. Being in a state of disarray.
2. Incomplete and/or inconsistent.
3. Does not function as intended.
I concur with the comments about confusing "broken" with "overpowered."
The magic item system in the game is "broken", but while there are parts of it that are broken and allow overpowered exploits, many of the broken parts of the system are not overpowered at all. In fact some of them are underpowered. A class that clearly overwhelms other classes is no more broken than a class that is incapable of competing with other classes.
The example used by the OP of the advanced template ogre is not necessarily "broken". I don't know of many GMs who would allow such a character as a player character unless they were deliberately going for some sort of monstrously overpowered play style, which some people like. As a GM if I allowed such a player party it would be up to me to provide a suitable challenge, and I feel confident such a challenge could be provided within the rules. The fact that an advanced template ogre can smash most things doesn't necessarily feel "broken" to me. That's more or less what I'd expect a beefed up ogre to do.