D&D 3.x D&D 3.5: Fake Choices Abound?
- Thread starter two
- Start date
That's a difficult topic. As I see it, it's vary hard to get the right balance. I think I read in an interview somewhere that that the designers of the PHB II saw that exact problem with a lot of the books, and that's why they designed the PHB II to be high on the power curve. They wanted the new feats & spells in it to be ones that people would actually take.
The result? When the PHB II came out, there was a gigantic thread on these very boards talking about how overpowered these new feats/spells were.
Of course, there's another perspective. Wizards is also the company that makes the Magic card game, and in Magic, having stronger and weaker card choices is a good thing. It introduces a competitive aspect to deck building, in that your deck can be stronger or weaker depending on the cards you choose. It's possible that the designers took some of this approach and applied it to D&D. It does create a reward for people who spend a lot of time thinking about choices for their character.
The result? When the PHB II came out, there was a gigantic thread on these very boards talking about how overpowered these new feats/spells were.
Of course, there's another perspective. Wizards is also the company that makes the Magic card game, and in Magic, having stronger and weaker card choices is a good thing. It introduces a competitive aspect to deck building, in that your deck can be stronger or weaker depending on the cards you choose. It's possible that the designers took some of this approach and applied it to D&D. It does create a reward for people who spend a lot of time thinking about choices for their character.
Bront
The man with the probe
First, thanks for the Kudosirishfast said:
Agreed. In fact, any game I run is basicly core + If you want it, ask me. Lets me review things to see if they fit and are balanced in game. This doesn't mean I say no a lot, but I like to reserve the right to do so. Players in my group are actualy more likely to take something underpowered though, and most don't have access to much beyond the PHB.
green slime
First Post
Some feats are necessary from a game perspective: Simple Weapon, Armour Proficiency (Light), for instance, more than being really viable feats, yet it is important that they exist in some form in the game.
With that caveat, i'd place the number of "viable" feats, for PC's, at around 100, definitely not more than 150. That assumes of course, that you fold similar ones into a single feat description (such as the +2 to one save feat).
One possible way to assess this would be to go through the Rogue's Gallery, and write down the feats people have selected for their characters there. Of course, the analysis would be then skewed, because not everyone has access to all the feats.
Most weapons from the PHB are less skewed, even though there are certain choices that are less than "stimulating".
Skills? I wasn't aware of any new horde of skills emerging, did I miss something? Although I really do detest the Eberron feats that expand on present skills. Expanding skill uses is good, requiring feats for that is not.
Classes or PrC's?
Well, I use the different classes to difine different areas/cultures of the campaign world, so more different classes is ok to a point. They should all be put through rigourous gametesting prior to release though, which is hardly the case these days. Anything for a quick buck, apparently.
PrC's are world specific, IMO, and I only need to see samples. They are a way for the DM to bring more flavour into his world. Allowing them all willy-nilly is a bit...extreme. Many suffer from power creep. And usually it is more of a power-sprint, than power creep.
Spells? Well I'm all for sawing down the spell lists. There really shouldn't be more than 20 spells at each level for each class. More spells just becomes a burden on the player. How many different varieties of yellow can you have? With Metamagic feats, and a solution similar to psionic's augmentation would be the way to go, IMO.
Ah well, I can dream.
With that caveat, i'd place the number of "viable" feats, for PC's, at around 100, definitely not more than 150. That assumes of course, that you fold similar ones into a single feat description (such as the +2 to one save feat).
One possible way to assess this would be to go through the Rogue's Gallery, and write down the feats people have selected for their characters there. Of course, the analysis would be then skewed, because not everyone has access to all the feats.
Most weapons from the PHB are less skewed, even though there are certain choices that are less than "stimulating".
Skills? I wasn't aware of any new horde of skills emerging, did I miss something? Although I really do detest the Eberron feats that expand on present skills. Expanding skill uses is good, requiring feats for that is not.
Classes or PrC's?
Well, I use the different classes to difine different areas/cultures of the campaign world, so more different classes is ok to a point. They should all be put through rigourous gametesting prior to release though, which is hardly the case these days. Anything for a quick buck, apparently.
PrC's are world specific, IMO, and I only need to see samples. They are a way for the DM to bring more flavour into his world. Allowing them all willy-nilly is a bit...extreme. Many suffer from power creep. And usually it is more of a power-sprint, than power creep.
Spells? Well I'm all for sawing down the spell lists. There really shouldn't be more than 20 spells at each level for each class. More spells just becomes a burden on the player. How many different varieties of yellow can you have? With Metamagic feats, and a solution similar to psionic's augmentation would be the way to go, IMO.
Ah well, I can dream.
Essentially, I think you're right, as long as you're a fervent min/maxer, any new spell/feat/class/Prestige class/other option is one of the following:two said:
1) an underpowered option (one that you won't take)
2) an overpowered option (one that you will take from now on)
3) an option that makes something that was previously not a viable option a viable option. (Note that this newly viable option may also be overpowered)
Only the third choice may increase your optimal options.
Unless you de-power some of the current stronger options (through errata, for example), you will always have a relatively small number of optimal options.
On the other hand, if you aren't a fervent min-maxer, you may choose to take sub-optimal choices simply because you like the idea or concept. Simuarly, if the rest of your group is either not particuarly effective at min-maxing (or simply not interested in doing so), a min-maxer who dosen't want to dominate the party may deliberately make sub-optimal choices, just to see how powerful they can make their PC with a "handicap".
Finally, this has something to do with the group. A particular DM may favor (deliberately or non-deliberately) certain types of options, which may make those relatively more powerful. (ex: Fireball dosen't work well in close quarters with only one opponent; if most encounters are like this, then fireball is sub-optimal).
two
First Post
Zimbel16 said:
These are good points, but I would argue not just true of a "fervent min/maxer" given that combat is wired directly into the D&D XP awards. Feats and spells and abilities which help kill stuff directly contribute to party effectiveness and player progression.
A "neat and cool" player build who is a liability in the incredibly frequent combat situations most vanilla D&D campaigns feature is just as annoying for fun game play as an overpowered super maximized cheestastic PC.
Now, if XP awards were not based so heavily on combat, various non-combat related feats and spells gain power. But that's not D&D. And yes, I know you can get big XP from non combat stuff. 95% of the time, however, it's combat related.
As an example of "an option that makes something that was previously not a viable option a viable option" there are some interesting new shield feats that pump up the sword-n-board viability (shield applies to touch attacks as well? um...ok!).
I wish there were more.
Perhaps my terminology was too strong. However, I'd argue that a significant percentage of D&D players aren't able to min-max effectively and/or aren't interested. In a party where few (or no) players min/max, another non-min-maxer is unlikely to feel like luggage to the rest of the party.two said:
As an example, in one of the one-shots I played a few years ago, there were the following PCs (3.0 rules, all LV 2, except the rogue, who had a +1 LA race):
1) A Commoner.
2) A Rogue who took none of the standard rogue skills.
3) A Bard, with low physical stats.
4) A low-strength halfling Ranger focusing on melee, whose favored enemy never came up.
They went on a fairly standard, undead-heavy dungeon crawl. The most effective PC was the Commoner. In the majority of encounters, that character was more effective than the rest of the party combined.
Obviously, if any of the other players had bothered to do a standard min/max, the Commoner (who didn't even choose the right weapon for proficiency) whould have been a joke. As it was, the Commoner saved the party multiple times.
On the other hand, with a different game from about 2 years ago, most people put a lot of effort into getting a "perfect" min/max, often involving multiple prestige classes; a standard fighter build (for example) would have been a joke in that group.
