D&D 3E/3.5 D&D 3.5: Fake Choices Abound?

[two]

The "there are only 50 real feats among the 400 standard published feats" got me thinking.

I would agree as most did in the "feat" thread that D&D is 90%+ of the time a combat-intensive game (by definition), thus those feats which are most useful are those which are directly applicable to combat or to resisting combat effects.

With some exceptions, of course (not particularly numerous).

Let's say tentatively that 80% of all published feats are "weak" and won't ever turn up in your game, barring a player's experimental PC build.

Can the same be said for, well... spells? Is it true that we keep seeing the same "optimal" spells chosen time and again, and that no matter how many new spells are added to the game, they don't really increase the "choice" level much because they are not as useful/powerful as some of the default spell choice options?

Now, thankfully, some core builds "force" players to choose various underutilized spells (specialist mages, for example). But even then these build often have many of the standard "top 50" spell choices.

Now, as new spells are introduced into the game (wraithstrike) which are VERY powerful, they might slowly kick out some of the core "standard" spells -- but this is due, I would argue, to power creep more than any other factor.

My point?

I guess I agree with the previous poster that while there are many hundreds of feats, most of them are very lame and the "true choices" are far fewer - say 50. Same for spells; thousands out there, while the real choices (for any given spellcasting class) are much more limited -- say 50.

What I mean is that most sorcerers have chosen their spells from the "top 50." Ditto abjuration specialists, and illusionists, and etc. Each has their "top 50" which -- while not written in stone -- is pretty well established.

If I see a cleric, I pretty much know what spells he will bring to the table... the "top 50" cleric spells.

I guess I'm pondering the "viablility" options.

How many feats are really "viable" thus real choices?
How many spells?
How many weapons?
How many classes or PRC's?
How many skills?

My gut feeling is that I see the same types of weapons, skills, classes, spells, and feats endlessly reduplicated. There is the occasional (welcomed!) odd-ball... but sadly they are very rare.

Is 3.5 a system with a few much-used and abused "real choices" and an endless ever-expanding list of "non-viable" alternatives (spells, feats, weapons, classes...)?

 

[Pickaxe]

One thing to keep in mind is that, while many choices may be suboptimal for an adventuring PC, they have a place in the campaign world. I've never heard of a 3.5 PC with ranks in Profession, but presumably the worlds are full of them, as well as folks with Skill Focus (Profession: X) and Skill Focus (Craft: Y) and Skill Focus (Knowledge: Z). If you use the contact variant rules from Unearthed Arcana, PCs even have a reason to care about the "builds" for such experts, aristocrats, and commoners.

The same is certainly true for wepaons, armor, and other equipment. No PC ever wears padded armor, but it's cheap armor for your militia.

And it follows for spells as well. While many spells may go completely ignored by sorcerers, clerics, druids, and even wizards with sufficient spellbooks can have many spells that may never come into play in an encounter but do provide magical services that are important in other aspects of the campaign.

--Axe

 

[KarinsDad]

Interesting question.

My wife's Paladin has a Cleric cohort. My wife found it extremely difficult to pick spells (she is a beginning player), so I highlighted spells into 3 categories for her when taking spells: Often take, sometimes take, and almost never take. So, for the lower levels, this came out to:

L O S N
0 3 5 4
1 4 15 9
2 11 5 14
3 7 9 11

Granted, these are core rule spells only, and on her sheet the Cure spells are in the almost never take category, but I put them in the often take category (here) since they do get spontaneously cast a lot, and this was my list, so obviously YMMV on these.

However, the ratio is basically: 5 to 7 to 8. This makes about 1 spell in 4 often taken, 1 in 3 sometimes taken, and 2 in 5 rarely taken.

So, most of these spells are viable. But, almost half of them are for specialized situations and would not often be taken as a general rule.


The same can probably be said for spells from other sources, however, there is a problem in the game. It is basic math. If you have one book with spells in it, 1/x of those can be used at any given time (where x is a fairly large number). If you have two books of spells, only 1/2x (assuming the same number of spells) can be used at any time.

I handled this issue in my game by having the PHB spells be "common spells" and the Spell Compendium spells be "rare spells" and spells from other sources cannot be acquired by PCs without specific introduction in the game by the DM. Hence, very few PCs have Spell Compendium spells in their repetoire at lower levels. This, for the most part, limits them to PHB spells which in turn minimizes the "spell viability issue" somewhat.

 

[anon]

I personally agree that there are many many spells (and feats) which are simply not worth it--at their current level.

I would love to have a rating system in place which would allow ENers to rate the Feats and Spells. The spells which came out "underpowered" would then be great canditates for dropping a level, or two. In the case of Feats the "weak" Feats could be fixed by turning them into half-feats or by increasing their power (e.g Dodge works against all opponents, not just one.)

 

[frankthedm]

I personally agree that there are many many spells (and feats) which are simply not worth it--at their current level.

I would love to have a rating system in place which would allow ENers to rate the Feats and Spells. The spells which came out "underpowered" would then be great canditates for dropping a level, or two. In the case of Feats the "weak" Feats could be fixed by turning them into half-feats or by increasing their power (e.g Dodge works against all opponents, not just one.)

How about toning back feats that are too strong?

 

[irishfast]

As a player-only (never DMed), i'm going to take heat for this, but...

there's too much power creep in the new feats and especially in the new spells. for damage spells, it's almost like scorching ray became the standard, rather than fireball (whether or not that's a viable complaint, with fireball being 5d6 when you get it, it subject for another discussion).

for the feats, a little power creep is good; the feats in the PHB were somewhat weak and had limited choices. having more options, especially for any character with levels in fighter, is a good thing. the spells, well... i think game balanace went out the window with many of the spells in the SC.

anyway, my original point was going to be this: if you plan your character ahead, post it to your groups website as soon as you can, and talk with your DM about what you're playing and why, then there is no reason why he should not incorporate your build into his adventures. if you want to take something like Keen Eared Scout, and let him know ahead of time, then your ranger should be making listen rolls each second at the table, and the DM should be showing a preference towards your build in that respect. likewise, if you take ranks in Craft (carpetweaving), then, lo and behold!, an NPC wizard you meet wants to make a magic carpet, and is willing to pay you (perhaps in magic items) for a fantastic carpet.

true, it is possible for a player to make a mundane character. and you all know as well as i do that this toolbag is going to get killed off in a few sessions. DnD is about adventuring and about roleplaying; it's wrong to ignore one in favor of the other. the DM should have fun nearly killing off the players as often as he can, and the PCs should have fun taking their character, working together, thwarting the DMs plan, and saving the day (or ushering in an unheard of era of evil, depending on the campaign). in any case, if you talk to your group and your DM about what you want to take and why, then there's no reason why you shouldn't be presented with the opportunity to use it every so often. DMs who throw nothing but undead and non-flankable monsters at a party just because they don't like rogues are inexcusable. they should be tossed at the PCs because it's good for them to overcome a challenge and use their other skills, not because the DM doesn't like sneak attack damage. the same is true for each other skill in the game.

when you get to use your special abilities, it's fun. when you get to use your wits to overcome something your abilities can't handle, it's fun. when your DM nearly kills you all off, and the party cleric staggers back into town dragging a cart full of unconcious PCs, your DM had fun. but if you're not having fun, if your DM is so obsessed with the story and can't handle the PCs in it, then leave. find another table. there's no reason to spend a few hours every week getting mad at some jerk who thinks that tee shirts with wrap-around dragon graphics are cool.

so take ranks in Profession (lawyer). take skill focus. specialize in anything you want, and let your DM know ahead of time so he can start thinking about how to work it in. nothing says "fun" like convincing the magistrate to let the light-fingered party rogue go free.

 

[Bront]

I've seen and/or used every skill in the game at least once, and a good GM will take advantage of what skills are available (as will a good player).

Profession shows up for sailors and a few others who have usable skills, though often players only have a few ranks in them at most. Same with the craft skills in most cases. And, some skills are generaly more usefull than others, which is true in life as well.

Feats? While I've not seen all of them used, I've seen most of the core feats used at one time or another (I count the +2/+2 skill feats as one skill). Some of the expansion books feats are more niche feats, but there's nothing wrong with a niche feat.

Spells? Well, on the low level, I've seen most spells used or taken at least once. A lot of it is flavor, and some players use some spells more than others, so with a wide variety of players, you can see some fun usage of some spells that you might not see in another group.

 

[irishfast]

bront, i've agreed with you (silently) on more than one occasion (i don't post much). but, honestly, i'd love to play under frank the DM, too. if you let your players know what's up, there's no problems. end.

 

[sydbar]

Almost all my characters will put a few points in profession or craft, depending on the idea for the character, and which stat is higher. When i dm i have houseruled that the +2/+2 skills give you proficency in those skills, so people have a reason to take them.

 

[Ogrork the Mighty]

I find that the same feats are usually used over and over simply b/c people either don't have access to different sources, the DM won't allow them, or they're just too lazy to hunt around.

As a DM, I've found quite a few feats out there that seem like they're tailor made for NPCs or monsters that I've designed. Sometimes they're more flavour feats than combat feats (e.g., a feat that it is just obvious an NPC/monster should have, even if it's not the absolute best tactical choice).

The key to feats is research and experimentation. Find out what's out there and try 'em out. Granted, it's a little harder for PCs to experiment, but a good DM should be pointing out feats that players might like or that might be suited to certain characters.