D&D 3.x (3.5) People complain too much

[Empirate]

I just learned a little about cars! Your lucid comparison with optimization - which I understand better - helped a lot.

 

[kitcik]

From reading forums and whatnot, all I hear about is how this class is broken and how that spell is broken. I don't get it. Either people are extreme power gamers or they just don't appreciate the wonderful game that Wizards of the Coast designed for them.

My chief complaint is that WotC didn't provide as many examples of the special attacks of monsters as they should have, like the mechanics of negative levels. Or explain whether or not you can stack flaming on a magic weapon. On top of the ambiguity (which can be resolved at the table with house rules) is the constant stream of splat books that IMO added too much to the game and took the game away from the basics.

1) TSR provided us with a wonderful game. WOTC tweaked it, then abandoned it in favor of a completely different game (4E).

2) If you play in a group where the actions of your character are irrelevent most of the time then you will sympathize with the complaining about imbalance. Finding a group that plays in your style isn't always easy. If you are a fighter in a party of warblades... in a campaign based around combat, you will find out that you suck in a hurry. In a perfect world, it would certainly be better if the classes differed in flavor but not in power. However, I do basically agree with the attitude of "get over it" or "house rule it." Complaining isn't going to help - there's not even a company behind the game to listen any more.

3) So you are against complaining about imbalance but in favor of complaining about ambiguity and optional rules? Huh. Sounds like a lack of appreciation for the wonderful game... whatever. Well, I suggest playing with only those books and those rules which you like - this is the beauty of D&D.

 

[Dandu]

People complain too much? On the internet? Preposterous! Impossible! Unbelievable!

Inconceivable!

 

[Corwin of Amber]

Inconceivable!

I totally read that in Vicini's voice.


On to the topic at hand:
I think people like to have freedom, since there are various forms of magic that are not represented by the core rules. For instance, in the Sword of Truth books, Richard learns to partition his mind (schism). In the Chronicles of Amber, the Amberites can channel power through the symbol, The Pattern of Amber, which derives it's power from the ancient Dworkin (this is relatively close to Pact Magic). The Wheel of Time series introduces the notion of a system of magic that is represented by a pool of personal energy that can be drawn on over time, but only a certain amount at once (Spell Point variant or Psionics).

The core books encompas the magic systems of Jack Vance (hence Vancian casting), Donaldson (Thomas Covenant, wild magic), and paganist/spiritual magic derived from religion (this is not meant to be an absolute, simply a representation of the most prevalent themes as I see them).

 

[Deset Gled]

I think that the underlying cause of many complaints and arguments in 3.x is that the game is very different depending on what material you use. A core only 3.5 game is so completely different from a 3.5 game using all splat books that they are practically separate editions. This leads to conversations where people assuming they have a common ground for discussion when they are really arguing about entirely different things. It also means that one player's experience may be impossible to recreate in a different group.

 

[Axel]

In my experience, problems of over-powered or under-powered characters can be rectified by a competent and aware DM. To take the example listed above of a Fighter in a party of Warblades with a combat-heavy campaign - a savvy DM can introduce a combat challenge that is feat intensive (one wave of enemies is best dealt with by tripping, another by grappling and the last hits for massive damage but has an AC of 15 and 20 HP [Combat Expertise to the max]). Warblades look pretty much alike IME (everyone loves White Raven Tactics...) and will probably have to slog through the above encounter the hard way. A well-built Fighter may be able to pull through the encounter with relative ease. I am solving generalities with specifics again though and should cease and desist.

To return to generalities: Yes, people complain too much, and not just about D&D. D&D complaints, IME generally come down to DM inexperience or the DM failing to manage player's expectations properly.

 

[Dandu]

Warblades look pretty much alike IME (everyone loves White Raven Tactics...)

Fighters look pretty much alike IME (everyone loves Power Attack)

I am solving generalities with specifics again though and should cease and desist.

Tailoring encounters helps, but only so much. A fighter can't afford multiple feat chains early on, and later on when he has gone up, say, two he finds that they tend to be less awesome than the investment would suggest.

I'm going through your example encounters and considering how a well built Warblade and Fighter would fair if they were both in the same party. I can see the fighter doing better in grappling, but not necessarily in tripping and the 15 AC, 20 HP heavy hitter due to Warblades having class features rewarding Int which makes Combat Expertise and Improved Trip more appealing, and Emerald Razor Strike which allows you to attack things at touch AC and Power Attack away.

Now, there are other combat maneuvers in the game, such as Bull Rushing and Disarming. Warblades get Minotaur's Charge and Disarming Strike, which allow them to pull off similar effects. They also get abilities that fighters will never get.

As far as I can tell archery and grappling are the only things Fighters can claim a decisive advantage in, unless there's a grappling maneuver in ToB that I missed.