Actually, very often, they didn't. I'm talking about the Artifacts section of the old 1e DMG. They don't appear in adventures even if specific, adventure-based or new ones sometimes cropped up - like Daoud's Wondrous Lanthorn in S4. Off hand, I can think of the Cup and Talisman of Al'Akbar appearing in an adventure and that's about it.
"Artifact" as a general word isn't limited to the DMG list; if you're using the word in that respect, you might clarify. (Otherwise it's like me saying, "animals are carnivores," and you say "what about giraffes?" and I reply "I'm talking about cats.")
Otherwise, off the top of my head:
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Remember, we're talking about a time before anyone expresses interest or not. If you say: "Here is a campaign idea," but you mean "Here is the campaign, I'll feel free to add restrictions as needed to maintain the 'purity' of my setting, ban everything that doesn't suit my personal taste -- no compormises or you're being disruptive, no exceptions or you're being 'entitled'! - now, who's interested?" I doubt you'd get too many people signing up.
I'm not saying that's how you'd actually handle things -- I don't think you would -- but your posts come across as strongly advocating that sort of stance. Just as you've interpreted my posts about compromise as somehow meaning that I run a generic and flavorless Monte Haul game (which also isn't the case).
I'm hoping that we agree, though, that the idea of compromising isn't automatically an unmitigated negative on in all cases.
What I am saying is compromise is relative. If the group is on the same page, and there is an outlier who is asking for something beyond what the group is willing to give them, there is usually a reason.
When you propose the campaign, you include the restrictions you intend add or remove, and you futher clarify as you work with players through character creation.
What I see to often on here is "My mean GM won't let me play my awesome concept".
Maybe your GM thinks your concept sucks. Maybe your GM thinks you can't pull off your concept without being an asshat. Maybe your GM thinks your concept is going to cause problems they don't want to have to deal with throughout the game.
In the incredibly long and derailed Paladin thread, the OP was about a player in my group who is more or less allowed to play any concept they want, at any time, no questions asked, because they have shown through the years an uncanny ability to make any concept work. Hell, I would let that guy play a Kender.
You gave an example of Toz's monk acrobat, and that is apt. But I also sit on these boards and look at some of the cheese builds and exploits people actually play, in actual games, and you are saying a GM should accomodate...I know you aren't saying always, but I think there needs to be a clear power of veto given to the GM as part of a group allowing them to run a game.
And further, just because TOZ and my buddy can pull stuff off, not everyone is entitled to benefit of the doubt. Some people have either not earned, or lost that priviledge.
And that is a table call, made by the GM. Why the GM? Because he is who everyone trusted enough to put in charge.
And further, just because TOZ and my buddy can pull stuff off, not everyone is entitled to benefit of the doubt. Some people have either not earned, or lost that priviledge.
This is where I can never quite follow the other side of the argument: I don't choose to play with people I don't like, and can't trust. My free time is too valuable to me to be indiscriminate about who I spend it with. (As a rule of thumb, if I wouldn't want to go out drinking with a person, I wouldn't game with him or her, either.) Yeah, this makes eligible players (already a valuable commodity) a whole lot scarcer, but it's totally worth it to me.
If you choose to game with a bunch of people you don't trust, and can barely tolerate, then I can see that a much more authoritarian approach would be needed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Running a niche game with restrictions isn't a sign of a bad GM.
Agreed. However, in my years of gaming, I've learned that GMs who are extremely eager to ban things and assert control over character generation generally send up a red flag, which I was usually better off heeding. Now, of course, I just don't game with people I don't trust to some extent, which goes back to Deathquaker's excellent post.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And further, just because TOZ and my buddy can pull stuff off, not everyone is entitled to benefit of the doubt. Some people have either not earned, or lost that priviledge.This is where I can never quite follow the other side of the argument: I don't choose to play with people I don't like, and can't trust. My free time is too valuable to me to be indiscriminate about who I spend it with. (As a rule of thumb, if I wouldn't want to go out drinking with a person, I wouldn't game with him or her, either.) Yeah, this makes eligible players (already a valuable commodity) a whole lot scarcer, but it's totally worth it to me.
If you choose to game with a bunch of people you don't trust, and can barely tolerate, then I can see that a much more authoritarian approach would be needed.
And we've touched on this before. I think those of us who have good groups don't have this problem because we only game with people know and like.
But we also aren't coming to the board to ask for advice about problem players or problem GMs, now are we?
So my issue is when someone is asking for how to handle that circumstance, players should understand that a GM saying "This is how I run" isn't cruelty, its preference.
Maybe that player needs to find another game. Or maybe that player should give the GM a try and see if there is a reason that group plays that style.
But what they shouldn't do is tell the group they are doing it wrong.
The group will tells the GM that by not showing up anymore.
And again, as we discussed elsewhere FLGS, CON, and PFS play, which I avoid like the plague specifically because of entitled players who can ruin sessions by being "that guy".
Now those settings can be a problem for bad GMs as well, as there is less screening in advance. But at the end of the day, if a player sits down for a session, play the GMs game for that session and decide if it is worth coming back, rather than derailing the game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In general, I don't think we're too far off. You're recommending that GMs who are uncertain of their authority or players shouldn't be too afraid to be assertive where needed, especially if the other players are behind them -- and I agree.
I'm advising the anally-retentive that a setting unable to survive interaction with the players should be in a novel, not a tabletop game; that the DM's chair isn't a throne; and that running a game shoudn't be an excuse for going on an extended ego trip. (Sadly, this hobby has more than its share of people who think they're more creative than they really are, and who get little recognition socially and overdo things when opportunity presents.)
I think both areas of advice are useful, depending on the situation.
Also...what is exactly 'power creep' people talk about? I know the theory...but in all my years of playing D&D have never actualy seen it.
That's.... unusual.
One simple example of power creep, for instance, is the ever-increasing list of divine spells. Clerics and druids (RAW), know EVERY spell on the divine lists; this means that every time a new splatbook is published, they have more spells and therefore more options (= more power) available to them.
One recent example : Snowball. Ranged touch attack, 1d6 per caster level, available at level one. No other druid spell that I'm aware of has these properties. (That's a LOT of damage for a low level druid spell.) All of a sudden, my low-level caster druid just got a lot more powerful in combat with the publication of People of the North.
Every new feat, similarly, makes another possible focused buff, enhancing character focus and therefore power.
I've always had a simple rule for supplements. I have to own it in dead tree copy. Its what I call the "DM on the Can" rule. If I can't casually peruse the rules whenever I want, well..
Note to self - do not buy or borrow Spook205s RPG books....
One recent example : Snowball. Ranged touch attack, 1d6 per caster level, available at level one. No other druid spell that I'm aware of has these properties. (That's a LOT of damage for a low level druid spell.) All of a sudden, my low-level caster druid just got a lot more powerful in combat with the publication of People of the North.
He already had access to entangle, and 1d6 vs. 1 target once a day is breaking the game in comparison? I'm not doubting you, if that's how it worked out at your table; I just don't really understand how that would work.
kmal2t, I thought Ciretose and I covered all the bases; there's no all-or-nothing deal here, and a lot of space in between the two extremes you're going on about. Yes, if one player is being a dick, it's the DM's job to tell him to stop. Yes, if the DM is a prima-donna who only wants the players to help him fantasy-masturbate to his own "perfect" setting and specific ideas, then he's a total creep.
Most often, though, we're in a situation in which the DM and the players can, you know, actually talk to each other and work things out, without drawing battle lines and declaring war over it.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I can understand really wanting to badly try a build, but at least with me, I've got half a dozen "want to try" concepts in my head at once, so if one isn't allowed, certainly one of the others are---or the GM's campaign parameters inspires a new idea. Maybe some people only have one idea at a time? I don't know.
I think it depends on degree of character requested too, about whether a player is behaving reasonably. Most experiences I've had with players asking for something outside the boundaries laid are usually REALLY specific and to support a solid, campaign friendly concept, like, "You said core only, but can I have this feat from Ultimate Combat so I don't provoke AOOs when I shoot in melee? Otherwise I'm afraid my archer's going to get screwed in close quarters."
That's actually okay, I think--at least okay to ask! And usually if it makes sense and is reasonable, I'll allow it.
But if you're going, "Core only please," and THEN, after that's been established, somebody says, "Okay, here's my vishkanya magus, and that first level spell is from a Golarion setting book even though your game isn't set in Golarion, and that first level feat he has is from a 3rd party book you've never heard of before, and I won't play unless you let me play this exact character or I'll scream and scream and scream, " then that kind of player isn't looking to have fun playing a cooperative game. That kind of player is looking to have fun playing a power and control struggle with the GM, and trying to see how much shit he can get away with before the rest of the group snaps and kicks him out. And that's where I'm like, "Okay, scream away, but I guess you won't be playing with this group."
(Now, if I got together with a small group of players and we all said, "hey let's play an RPG. And in that RPG, I want to play a vishkanya magus. If you're willing to run, would you let me play that?" That's a different conversation entirely.)
I think the problem with discussions like this is people assume extremes (the GMs with the gnome only campaign and the players with the 3rd party vishkanya magi presented to the core game), but most requests in my experience anyway are more reasonable than that, on both sides of the table.
If we can agree that we both wouldn't enjoy the extremes... well, we'd probably not have much else to talk about.
|
1) When making a new character, should a player beforehand, tell the GM what class he wants to run and ask what materials he's allowed to use? Or should a player create the character he wants and the GM should figure out a way to accomodate him?
2) When it comes to optional materials: Is the burden on the Player to prove why he should be allowed to use certain optional spells/classes/feats etc. or on the DM to show why these materials should NOT be used?
Why or why not?
In a home game the player should discuss character design with the DM. Freedom of character design is fine within the permitted framework. Remember, the DM must balance the game around the entire group, not just you.
When it comes to materials and options permitted in the world created by the DM, the DM is GOD (100' tall letters carved in granite) with absolute powers of life and death. His world, his rules. He spent the time to define it and lay the framework out detailing what does and does not exist and the mechanics used to define how everything functions.
For example: if I define a world with no guns, the gunslinger simply does not exist in my world. Non-negotiable.
I'm not really sure where the problem lies. If I'm the GM, I design a campaign (or decide to run a particular AP) and tell my players "This is the concept for the campaign. Let me know what you want to run and I'll tell you if its doable."
Then I check out character concepts. If the character doesn't work, I tell them why, and make suggestions on what would work that seems close to what the player is trying to do. Eventually, everyone has PCs ready to go and we game.
Seems the only issue is when one or more people are being uncooperative. Doesn't happen much around my table, because we're friends and we'd rather game than argue.
In my Roman legions campaign, I'm not allowing Spartacus to have a Piper Cub ...God, those of us who got that are old.
It ran in... uh, about 1980, right? And you wonder where the time goes...
Which was precisely what my 867-alarm chili needed.It's not really his fault; I tempted him with a handful of magic beans.Dude! Stop giving away trade secrets!I like drawing battle lines.And then slipping away to exploit the ensuing chaos.
I'll bring the guacamole!
1) When making a new character, should a player beforehand, tell the GM what class he wants to run and ask what materials he's allowed to use? Or should a player create the character he wants and the GM should figure out a way to accomodate him?
2) When it comes to optional materials: Is the burden on the Player to prove why he should be allowed to use certain optional spells/classes/feats etc. or on the DM to show why these materials should NOT be used?
Why or why not?
Well it's gonna be different for every group, but at least with the group I play with now, the DM will come up with a campaign idea, put out a forum post describing:
- (possibly) the setting-what books are allowed
-the point buy
-any restrictions placed on character creation
If enough people say they are interested, the game proceeds to character development based on the restrictions. However, my gorup also seems to have the good sense to know that the DM might have forgotten to mention something in the post and will always seek approval for anything before trying to add it into the game.
Then again, my group is made of people who generally trust each other not to cheat or be jerks...
Given that things work that way in my group, then speaking for my group and my group alone:
1) The player. if you didn't want to play what we were playing, why did you say you did?
2) It's not up to anyone. The player said he would play with the restrictions when he agreed to be in the game. I want to say if he writes something up that includes banned stuff he can not play or change it, but I haven't had a player be enough of a jerk to write something up with rules that were banned.
Of course, special circumstances may change things. A bunch of people in our game that started "core only" 2 years ago have lots of stuff from splatbooks now (including my character changing her race and her class from bard to wilder... long story). But that's due to the game changing over time. If anyone came at the beginning of the game asking for the stuff we have now (after already agreeing not to), I know I would have been pissed if I were our DM.
|
|
In the incredibly long and derailed Paladin thread, the OP was about a player in my group who is more or less allowed to play any concept they want, at any time, no questions asked, because they have shown through the years an uncanny ability to make any concept work. Hell, I would let that guy play a Kender.
This.
-Vaz
No problem man, and I'm sorry if any of that sounded tetchy. It can get oddly complicated talking about such things.
And I think at times we all assume other people--especially other people with similar interests--must think/process the same way we do, when it's almost always not the case. Gamers also tend to be a highly intelligent bunch, but intelligence manifests in different ways -- it's easy for some people to memorize or calculate something very well, while others can't calculate for crap but have a tremendous vocabulary and descriptive skills. And those differences are actually why gaming (should be) is fun, because different people bring different gifts to the table, to create a better whole. But we all--and I ABSOLUTELY include myself in this, as it's something I fail to be mindful of all the time--have to remember that that also means something that is utterly obvious or reasonable to us just isn't going to be grokked at all by someone else who is by all rights equally or even more intelligent, just processes or sees things differently.
Which is why I ask questions. I like experience different things. Which mean sometimes to understand you got to ask questions. I might be very odd in that I don't like to answear a question with, "Because I just do". While it is a answear to me there is usualy something underlieing it. So when I can't articulate someting I usualy ask for time to examine why I feel the way I do. I understand not everbody is as introspective as me...so I don't push that kinda of response...beyond asking and discussing.
It is just my way to seek to walk a mile in other people's shoes before I past judgement.
That's.... unusual.
Not really as I think power creep is a subjective and not fact.
One simple example of power creep, for instance, is the ever-increasing list of divine spells. Clerics and druids (RAW), know EVERY spell on the divine lists; this means that every time a new splatbook is published, they have more spells and therefore more options (= more power) available to them.
Yes I found this to be true. Though easily fixable with a simple houserule. Though personaly I think the Core game just have all casters have to learn spells. Than this would not be a problem at all.
One recent example : Snowball. Ranged touch attack, 1d6 per caster level, available at level one. No other druid spell that I'm aware of has these properties. (That's a LOT of damage for a low level druid spell.) All of a sudden, my low-level caster druid just got a lot more powerful in combat with the publication of People of the North.
While I agree that it changes a possible role for druid...I would call this a good thing. Personaly I hate...class Roles. I realize that they have been in the game forever..but I never like them much. This option now helps a druid fill in the Role typicaly held by Wizards. Which I think can be a good thing. So is this power creep...or just a change to your expecations of a class?
Every new feat, similarly, makes another possible focused buff, enhancing character focus and therefore power.
Again not a neccessarily a bad thing.
One recent example : Snowball. Ranged touch attack, 1d6 per caster level, available at level one. No other druid spell that I'm aware of has these properties. (That's a LOT of damage for a low level druid spell.) All of a sudden, my low-level caster druid just got a lot more powerful in combat with the publication of People of the North.He already had access to entangle, and 1d6 vs. 1 target once a day is breaking the game in comparison? I'm not doubting you, if that's how it worked out at your table; I just don't really understand how that would work.
Well, entangle doesn't do damage, so it's actually not that useful a spell. In fact, snowball is one of the spells that makes entangle more effective, because I can attack for effective damage at range, something a core-only druid can't do. Without snowball, I would either need to wander into the zone of the entangle myself (and risk ridicule when I trap myself) or rely on another character ranged beat-stick to do the actual hit point damage.
And it's not 1d6 damage; it's 1d6 PER LEVEL, which means that it's still the most effective single-target damage spell in the game at 5th level. Call lightning only does 3d6 per bolt and allows a save.
But the really key point is that it's a first level spell, which means that I have as many of them as I like; it easily justifies burning a second-level slot on if I'm expecting a need for ranged combat.
Game breaking? Probably not; very few single rule changes are game breaking. But every spell I'm offered is one more situational option that makes me more powerful. Which is basically what "power creep" is.
Lots of other examples, of course. Every new weapon (that does something new, which is basically all of them) is power creep. If I have a weapon that is identical to a d6 weapon but it does a d8, that's one more hit point my fighter does on every successful hit.
Every new editions creates new options and removes old limitations. That's power creep, in a nutshell.
Abjurant Champion. Nearly every Wizard Prestige Class. Druids and Wizards with the spells from the Spell Compendium...
Abjurant Champion? Really? Too powerful? Never had a problem with in any games I have played in. Heck even ported it over to Pathfinder and still have no problems with it.
Nearly Every Wizard Prestige Class? Um...none are more powerful than Archmage.
Name a spell from the Spell Compendium that could break the game more than Gate? Shapechange? Wish/Miracle? (Not equaly...is that would not be a increase in power.)
Sure not every option will be equal in power level to everything in Core...but I think you are kinda of missing the point...not everything is equal within Core.
Also sure some of the later prcs, feats, spells were just stupidly designed...and there is issues with combos( which I think it is different from the issue of 'power creep').
Still waiting for a Class that was more powerful than wizard, cleric or druid? You gaved me some PrCs.
Well, entangle doesn't do damage, so it's actually not that useful a spell.
With a bit of tactics, direct-damage spells become the LEAST effective spells in the game, not the most.
For just this example: the ability to lock down multiple opponents is WAY better than the ability to slightly injure one opponent. Partly because of the numbers, mostly because you're giving your team the ability to dictate the terms of the fight, and partly because there are no penalties at all for taking damage -- none -- unless that damage reduces you to 0 hp or less (which 1d6 per level won't do).
1st level party vs. orcs. Orcs hit really hard -- WAY harder than 1d6 damage. I can hit one orc for 1d6/level and make it slightly easier for one of my teammates to kill him later, at the cost of him charging and killing me. Or I can make all three orcs stand there and eat crossbow bolts until they die, at no risk to myself. Which one of those options is more useful?
That's.... unusual.Not really as I think power creep is a subjective and not fact.
Well, the increase in power is objective. More spells = more power. (You acknowledged that yourself.) More weapon choices = more power. We can argue about whether or not power creep is a bad thing -- that is indeed subjective. But that's not what I understood you to be saying earlier.
And, yes, many if not most instances of power creep are fixable, but that puts another burden on the Game Master. You suggested:
Though easily fixable with a simple houserule. Though personaly I think the Core game just have all casters have to learn spells. Than this would not be a problem at all.
First, this "simple house rule" doesn't actually fix the problem. Using Snowball as an example, it is generally just better than Shocking Grasp, even for arcane casters. (Identical damage, but Snowball can be cast at range for safety, uses a generally better stat for the targeting roll, and does not allow spell resistance). Except situationally (fighting something immune to cold, or Magus-like touch spell benefits), it's a better spell and hence makes even arcane casters more powerful. Hence, power creep.
Second of all, I need to know about this particular boost in power, decide whether or not I want to permit it in my game, and come up with an appropriate house rule. For a game with a substantial amount of third-party support, this could be thousands of pages I need to read and understand all the implications of. As we've just seen, that can be a substantial problem.
While I agree that it changes a possible role for druid...I would call this a good thing.
Not "changes," but "expands." And that's power creep. Making a druid more wizard-like is likely to tick off the person left with a diminished role. Look at how much hate the synthesist summoner has drawn, basically for turning a wizard-like character into a front-line fighter.
So is this power creep...or just a change to your expecations of a class?
It's power creep, as I hope you will now acknowledge. I acknowledge that power creep isn't necessarily bad; if you enjoy a high-powered game with flexible characters, then power creep will actually make the game more fun for you. One of the things Paizo explicitly tried to do was to creep the power (compared with 3.5) at the lowest levels to make sure that characters were still fun to play. For example, my wizard can now cast Acid Splash at will, so he never runs out of combat-effective spells, even at first level. He also has more hit points so won't be killed by a house cat. My fighter has a ton more feats so he has many more things to do at higher levels instead of just playing an ugly wall of hit points.
But this also is an explicit example of power creep; I've seen it suggested that simply being a Pathfinder character (instead of a 3.5 character) is worth +1 challenge rating.
Abjurant Champion? Really? Too powerful? Never had a problem with in any games I have played in. Heck even ported it over to Pathfinder and still have no problems with it.
The only issue I had with it is when all the single-classed casters starting taking it. Hmmm... no loss of casting ability, full BAB, d10 HD, a bunch of nice benefits... and for that I give up what? A bonus metamagic feast?
For "gish" builds it was nicely balanced.
Well, entangle doesn't do damage, so it's actually not that useful a spell.With a bit of tactics, direct-damage spells become the LEAST effective spells in the game, not the most.
And the melting point of lead is about 325 C.
Both true, and equally irrelevant to the question of whether or not more options grants more power. Post-splat, a druid can do something he could not do well before (attack a single target effectively at range using a low-level direct-damage spell).
There will still be situations where entangle is a better choice. But there will also be situations where entangle is not at all useful or appropriate, and direct damage is a superior choice. (I can't use entangle on a boat in the open ocean; there are no plants to direct; Or perhaps I've already entangled the orcs, but one of them has some uber-reach weapon and I can't get away from it; a 5d6 Snowball is the single most damaging spell my 5th level druid can cast. ... And I've got lots of them.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not really as I think power creep is a subjective and not fact.
Power Creep is a fact. It happens.
I'm not sure PF has reached the point where it's a problem yet, but any game that runs long enough will have this problem. For example (and I know it's from a different genre and all, but it's the best example from the top of my head) is Yu-gi-oh. Almost all of the cards from the original starter packs are useless in the game today, because more powerful cards got made to get people to buy them and it happened for so long that some cards that were super powerful secret rares in the first run of the game are outclassed by some commons now.
A good DnD example (from a different edition) found with a quick google, is that in 3.0 the ability we now call "pounce" was an ability one could only get at epic levels. Until a splatbook came out that had it as an option for a level 1 barbarian.
Yes I found this to be true. Though easily fixable with a simple houserule. Though personaly I think the Core game just have all casters have to learn spells. Than this would not be a problem at all.
Not to argue, but "I can change it with a houserule" is not really a defense. Yes, you can change anything with a houserule. That doesn't really address the issue which was about power creep in the RAW itself.
While I agree that it changes a possible role for druid...I would call this a good thing. Personaly I hate...class Roles.
That explains why you are so gung ho about archetypes. One of the things I hate about them is that they allow classes to do things they couldn't before which steps on another class's toes. (Which is, in fact, an example of power creep.) I do not want to get into another argument about archetypes before anyone goes there.
I realize that they have been in the game forever..but I never like them much. This option now helps a druid fill in the Role typicaly held by Wizards. Which I think can be a good thing. So is this power creep...or just a change to your expecations of a class?
Expanding an already top tier class's options for what roles they can play is generally the exact kind of thing people are complaining about when they complain about power creep.
Every new feat, similarly, makes another possible focused buff, enhancing character focus and therefore power.Again not a neccessarily a bad thing.
Not necessarily, no. But there comes a point where the creep gets to a point where there's little reason to use anything from the core books if everything is open. I think it's fair to call it a bad thing at that point. The sad thing is, the point where that happened is only really recognizable in hindsight.
I took a while to type this so I've probably been ninja'd.
|
|
Abjurant Champion? Really? Too powerful? Never had a problem with in any games I have played in. Heck even ported it over to Pathfinder and still have no problems with it.
If a Full BaB/full caster with basically no penalty isn't broken in your game, there is literally nothing I can describe to you that you will classify as broken.
Abjurant Champion? Really? Too powerful? Never had a problem with in any games I have played in. Heck even ported it over to Pathfinder and still have no problems with it.The only issue I had with it is when all the single-classed casters starting taking it. Hmmm... no loss of casting ability, full BAB, d10 HD, a bunch of nice benefits... and for that I give up what? A bonus metamagic feast?
For "gish" builds it was nicely balanced.
Meh. Even for full casters it wasn't all that bad. It also cost a feat for the martial weapon and one for combat casting. And a wizard or sorcerer had to wait until 11th level to get it. That's a lot of waiting.
Both true, and equally irrelevant to the question of whether or not more options grants more power. Post-splat, a druid can do something he could not do well before (attack a single target effectively at range using a low-level direct-damage spell).
You'd have done well in sticking to this argument in the first place then, instead of undermining it with demonstrably incorrect claims. Snowball isn't overpowered because it deals damage. It's an example of power creep because it lets an already-powerful class do something that it maybe couldn't do as well beforehand (although I should note that produce flame is still arguably better because of the greater range and multiple attacks, despite the slightly lower damage output per attack).
|
|
Meh. Even for full casters it wasn't all that bad. It also cost a feat for the martial weapon and one for combat casting. And a wizard or sorcerer had to wait until 11th level to get it. That's a lot of waiting.Abjurant Champion? Really? Too powerful? Never had a problem with in any games I have played in. Heck even ported it over to Pathfinder and still have no problems with it.The only issue I had with it is when all the single-classed casters starting taking it. Hmmm... no loss of casting ability, full BAB, d10 HD, a bunch of nice benefits... and for that I give up what? A bonus metamagic feast?
For "gish" builds it was nicely balanced.
Waiting for a class that gave you full BaB/Full Hit points and no loss of spells.
If that is in any way not considered broken, it is only relative to how broken 3.5 had gotten to that point that such a thing didn't cause an eyelash bat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If a Full BaB/full caster with basically no penalty isn't broken in your game, there is literally nothing I can describe to you that you will classify as broken.
Abjurant Champion? Really? Too powerful? Never had a problem with in any games I have played in. Heck even ported it over to Pathfinder and still have no problems with it.
Full BaB for a caster...a truely powerfuly built broken caster...is as useful as a submarine with screen doors. Casters have alot better option than say using their BaB for anything that I can think of uses of BaB.
If you think this is Broken...that I might put give you a heart attack if I showed things that are truely broken just in Core.
@Orfamay Quest: Actualy my house rule...which I did not mention as it is a house rule...does fix it rather nicely. The rule I mentioned will also have fixed it. As both means the character will have to choose what he wants to do. (Note my house rules is simple Divine casters get everything in core...anything outside of core must be researched though it maybe part of a treasure a reward. Name a 1st level character with a 1000gp to spend?)
Sure having greater flexability is power creep...though only if it is just for one class...if all classes recieve equal number of options than it remain relatively the same.
For example the only thing I would classfied as power creep in PF was UC and UM as they created a uneven number of option. Though that was not as bad.
Well, entangle doesn't do damage, so it's actually not that useful a spell.With a bit of tactics, direct-damage spells become the LEAST effective spells in the game, not the most.
And the melting point of lead is about 325 C.
Both true, and equally irrelevant to the question of whether or not more options grants more power. Post-splat, a druid can do something he could not do well before (attack a single target effectively at range using a low-level direct-damage spell).
It's not irrelevant.
Power Creep implies an increase in POWER. Hence why it is called POWER Creep and not OPTIONS Creep.
New options that are not as POWERful as previously released options does not imply POWER Creep.
There will still be situations where entangle is a better choice. But there will also be situations where entangle is not at all useful or appropriate, and direct damage is a superior choice. (I can't use entangle on a boat in the open ocean; there are no plants to direct; Or perhaps I've already entangled the orcs, but one of them has some uber-reach weapon and I can't get away from it; a 5d6 Snowball is the single most damaging spell my 5th level druid can cast. ... And I've got lots of them.)
Useful in some situations and less useful in others is pretty much the definition of balance in game design.
Full BaB for a caster...a truely powerfuly built broken caster...is as useful as a submarine with screen doors. Casters have alot better option than say using their BaB for anything that I can think of uses of BaB.
If you think this is Broken...that I might put give you a heart attack if I showed things that are truely broken just in Core.
For the cost of a martial weapon proficiency feat you get to go from a d4 to d10 hp for 5 levels, get to more than double the effect of your shield spell for free, cast that shield spell as a quickened spell for free, Andget another ability that gives you a boost to saves or AC (that stacks with most others since its an insight bonus)as a swift action. You get most of the benefits of taking 5 levels in fighter, more stuff on top of that, and give up nothing.
There is no reason a wizard wouldn't want to pick it up. That's power creep at it's worst.
If you truly think wizards are already too powerful like you seem to, I can't see why you don;t think giving them more stuff for free isn't bad.
It's not irrelevant.
Power Creep implies an increase in POWER. Hence why it is called POWER Creep and not OPTIONS Creep.
New options that are not as POWERful as previously released options does not imply POWER Creep.
More options is more power.
High level wizards aren't considered more powerful than fighters because they deal more damage. They are more powerful because they have more options to deal with situations.
Any time you add to any class's role options, you increase their power, and the overall power level of the game.
That spell allows the druid to do something it couldn't do before, thereby making the class more powerful.
Dealing damage is not something the Druid was incapable of doing before.
The only time a new option adds more power is when said option is better than the previously released options (which this is not) or lets the class do something they previously couldn't (which this doesn't).
Releasing a spell that allows a Druid to Wild Shape at will for 24 hours as a 3rd/4th level spell? Power Creep. It obsoletes pretty much every other self-Polymorph spell.
Releasing a spell that allows you to deal a solid chunk of damage, when dealing damage is suboptimal for a caster? Not Power Creep. It adds nothing new to the class.
Besides that, a Druid Wild Shaped into a combat form and even slightly specced for battle will far outpace Snowball's damage to begin with. So it's not even his best damage dealing option.
Dealing damage is not something the Druid was incapable of doing before.
Opps, I forgot produce flame exists. (Although snowball is better than it in most situations).
The only time a new option adds more power is when said option is better than the previously released options (which this is not) or lets the class do something they previously couldn't (which this doesn't).It's still better for burst damage than produce flames and doesn;t require a touch attack, so that's debatable.
Releasing a spell that allows a Druid to Wild Shape at will for 24 hours as a 3rd/4th level spell? Power Creep. It obsoletes pretty much every other self-Polymorph spell.Releasing a spell that allows you to deal a solid chunk of damage, when dealing damage is suboptimal for a caster? Not Power Creep. It adds nothing new to the class.
Again, it deals burst damage better than any other spell a druid gets at that level, and is better than shocking grasp in pretty much every way, thereby obsoleting a wizard spell. That's power creep.
Besides that, a Druid Wild Shaped into a combat form and even slightly specced for battle will far outpace Snowball's damage to begin with. So it's not even his best damage dealing option.Not at level 1 and at range he won't. the game isn't only played at level 20
|
|
If a Full BaB/full caster with basically no penalty isn't broken in your game, there is literally nothing I can describe to you that you will classify as broken.
Abjurant Champion? Really? Too powerful? Never had a problem with in any games I have played in. Heck even ported it over to Pathfinder and still have no problems with it.
Full BaB for a caster...a truely powerfuly built broken caster...is as useful as a submarine with screen doors. Casters have alot better option than say using their BaB for anything that I can think of uses of BaB.
If you think this is Broken...that I might put give you a heart attack if I showed things that are truely broken just in Core.
So your argument is there is no creep because you already allowed core to be broken.
Helping or hurting your argument?
Opps, I forgot produce flame exists. (Although snowball is better than it in most situations).
Jess, I agree it is better than Produce Flame in many ways.
It's still better for burst damage than produce flames and doesn;t require a touch attack, so that's debatable.
They both can be used as a ranged touch attack.
Produce Flame actually has a much greater range.
Again, it deals burst damage better than any other spell a druid gets at that level, and is better than shocking grasp in pretty much every way, thereby obsoleting a wizard spell. That's power creep.
I've already been over this in another thread, look it up if you want my thoughts on this bit.
Not at level 1 and at range he won't. the game isn't only played at level 20
At level 1, Produce Flame's 1d6+1 beats it, so I figured you were talking about higher levels.
By level 5, when its damage maxes out at 5d6, a Druid can shapeshift into something with two claws and a bite, dealing somewhere in the ballpark of 3d4+3xStr which at least matches the average damage of a 5d6 hit if the Druid has even slightly invest in Str.
Once he can get Large animals (the level immediately proceeding Snowball's max damage) it gets better.
First, this "simple house rule" doesn't actually fix the problem. Using Snowball as an example, it is generally just better than Shocking Grasp, even for arcane casters. (Identical damage, but Snowball can be cast at range for safety, uses a generally better stat for the targeting roll, and does not allow spell resistance). Except situationally (fighting something immune to cold, or Magus-like touch spell benefits), it's a better spell and hence makes even arcane casters more powerful. Hence, power creep.
Why compare it to Shocking Grasp? To me the more direct paraell would be Magic Missile. Which does not require a touch attack roll at all. When both spells top out it has the same damage average. Magic Missile is only stopped by Shield and SR. I rather have Magic Missile than Snowball( in most general situration...yes a Snowball can be better....
Oh and Wizards get Snowball also.
Also it is really nice for people who create character concepts based on themes...which is really hard to do with just Core at times.
While I agree that it changes a possible role for druid...I would call this a good thing. Personaly I hate...class Roles.That explains why you are so gung ho about archetypes. One of the things I hate about them is that they allow classes to do things they couldn't before which steps on another class's toes. (Which is, in fact, an example of power creep.) I do not want to get into another argument about archetypes before anyone goes there.
What!!! You Don't Allow Archetypes...What kind of close minded fool you are. Archetypes are AWesome.
Just kidding...to each their own.
And to a degree I agree with you...Cleric should be the best at healing...Wizards should be the best at Control...etc. And I do not like rchetypes that knock over some class over the head and complertely steal their stuff.
But...I don't mind some generalization in my class as oppose to specialization. Otherwise you kinda see the same cookie cutter characters.
Just my two cents