Ed Stark on an unbalanced rule in Unearthed Arcana

[MerricB]

From this thread on the Wizards boards:

Querent: OK, I love the idea of item familiars, the first time I read it I was practically giddy because it's such a freakin' cool mechanic. Yet the more I think about it, the more it seems unfair. Consider: an item familiar can give you extra XP at low levels, bonuses to skills (which can actually add up to quite a lot if you're willing to put a fair number of ranks into the item), an extra spell slot, and all the nifty special abilities at no cost except a feat. Also the risk of the item being lost or destroyed, but if your DM makes you lose your item familiar, odds are he's very cruel and you would have suffered anyway. ...snip...

So, anyway, any thoughts? Do you think Item Familiar is overpowered, if so to what degree and what might be done to rectify it?

Ed Stark: I wrote it, and I don't think it's balanced at all for just the reasons you point out.

Item familiars work best in a fairly atypcial D&D game where your items are actually at reasonable risk for getting blown up, stolen, or otherwise separated from you. I don't think item familiars are so unbalanced that they'll seriously corrupt a game that doesn't employ these aspects but the feat that allows you to have an item familiar could certainly become a "no brainer" feat for the party ... which isn't great for a game. Any option that demands it be taken isn't really much of an option.

That, of course, can be said about many of the UA options. They will change your D&D game. I'm glad you like the idea of item familiars and I hope they work out as fun in your game.

PS: One of the ways item familiars grew into being was that in an earlier game I ran, characters were really employing famliliars and animal companions to the max ... and they were getting killed off fairly regularly because of it. One of the non-spellcasters joked that he didn't have the opportunity to put part of his power at risk and I started tinkering.

There are more comments by Ed Stark on the feat in the thread - Merric

Cheers!

 

[DiFier]

IMC I came across an intelligent dagger that had been another (long dead) wizard's Familiar. I don't really want to lose my familiar and the dagger by itself is pretty cool. tho it is still asleep. it is a cool idea. I'm glad my DM thought of it a couple of years ago. tho he didn't have any rules cause it wasn't gonna be my familiar.

 

[FireLance]

Hmm. Perhaps we should make it an official Rule 0.5: "The DM is the best arbiter of balance in his campaign."

That would cut down on all the threads arguing that [class/race/feat/spell] [is unbalanced/is broken/is overpowered/is underpowered/got the shaft] since it's all DM-dependent anyway.

Then again, ENWorld would be a less interesting* place without these threads .

* And all of us love to live in interesting times, don't we?

 

[Snoweel]

...but the feat that allows you to have an item familiar could certainly become a "no brainer" feat for the party ... which isn't great for a game. Any option that demands it be taken isn't really much of an option.

Are DMs unable to restrict access to 'overpowered' options? Is this truly a problem for people?

I just hope these aren't the same DMs who complain that a steady stream of magic items are the only way to reward their PCs.

Just because a certain spell/feat/PrC/whatever is a 'must have' doesn't mean PCs should have free access to it. These kinds of 'options' make great rewards and counter the item-dependence many see as a problem. (Though obviously not in the case of this particular feat.)

 

[Geoff Watson]

Of course the DM can modify things so they're balanced.

It would be much easier if the designers got things right the first time.

What were the playtesters doing if they can't spot obviously unbalanced stuff?

Geoff.

 

[William Ronald]

Hmm. Perhaps we should make it an official Rule 0.5: "The DM is the best arbiter of balance in his campaign."

That would cut down on all the threads arguing that [class/race/feat/spell] [is unbalanced/is broken/is overpowered/is underpowered/got the shaft] since it's all DM-dependent anyway.

Then again, ENWorld would be a less interesting* place without these threads .

* And all of us love to live in interesting times, don't we?

I suspect we would still find something to argue about. However, I think Ed Stark is right to point out how the rule might unbalance a campaign. I am still going through Unearthed Arcana, and see how some of the rules could greatly alter the campaign. So far, I am favorably impressed by most of what I have seen in the book.

 

[MerricB]

What were the playtesters doing if they can't spot obviously unbalanced stuff?

Not looking for a standard sense of balance. UA is not set up to be plugged into a standard D&D game. Some sections of it are meant to radically change the way the game is played. (e.g. Gestalt classes, the Injury (no hit points) system).

UA was an opportunity for the designers to give us a whole lot of interesting ideas without regard for a standard D&D campaign (which can be quite restricting in what it allows).

Cheers!

 

[Li Shenron]

Not looking for a standard sense of balance. UA is not set up to be plugged into a standard D&D game. Some sections of it are meant to radically change the way the game is played. (e.g. Gestalt classes, the Injury (no hit points) system).

UA was an opportunity for the designers to give us a whole lot of interesting ideas without regard for a standard D&D campaign (which can be quite restricting in what it allows).

I very agree. Although I am sure that the authors have addressed the topic of balance when writing or collecting the UA material, I think the book does not make of balance a central point. Or better, I think it DOES when regarding to e.g. the class variants which are supposed to be used along the core classes, or among the classes of a whole alternative set, but not every single variant rule is carefully balanced with the standard D&D.

Gestalt classes are the perfect example

For these reasons, I think this book deserved the tag "for mature audiences only" more than the BoVD and BoED

 

[Calico_Jack73]

See I look at the XP bonus for Item Familiars as a mechanic to allow spellcasters to create more items. Creating any item costs experience and the more powerful the item, the more experience they cost. A lot of players are so posessive of the experience they've earned that they NEVER create a single item, even scrolls. Giving them the bonus can help give them free XP they can use for that purpose.

Before the UA came out with the Action Point idea my group used a similar system called Hero Points. In addition to using them to give bonuses to rolls I allowed my players to cash them in for 100 XP per Hero Point. Now, Wizard players just cash in a Hero Point or two to pay the XP cost and they are good to go.

 

[drnuncheon]

It also more than adequately models common fantasy ideas like a wizard whose powers are greatly weakened without his staff.

J
...or this ring I read about once...