Free Will and Story

[Mike Eagling]

I would never change something in the middle, just to fit things into what I think is right. If Glitterdust is a problem, it gets resolved outside of game, after the problem is identified. That way, the players know that they can trust the mechanics, and consequently, trust me because they know that they will never have the rug pulled out from under them just because I don't think the rules are right.

I tend to agree with this. I've certainly encountered these situations but generally operate by allowing that instance to go ahead with the knowledge that it'll be house ruled in the future.

It's definitely a system issue as much as it is a table issue, in my opinion. And I'd prefer to avoid saying "that doesn't work" as GM all the time. As always, play what you like

It's certainly possible to write a borked game system and for players (on both sides of the screen) to abuse a working system to the point where it doesn't work as intended.

I think one of the chief reasons for this in all versions of D&D has been the proliferation of classes. In 3.x onwards the proliferation of feats probably doesn't help either.

While I absolutely do think that it's the game designer's job to prevent serious mechanical issue from occurring. That's the whole point of playtesting and whatnot, isn't it? To make sure that one option isn't so superior to other options that it becomes the default.

I suspect it's the lack of sufficient play testing that causes such new classes and feats to be problematic.

 

[Hussar]

To be fair though, [MENTION=6703609]Mike Eagling[/MENTION], 3e's extra classes were rarely problematic. I've never heard of balance issues with something like a Martial or a Favoured Soul.

Feats? Sure. There was quite a bit there, although, again, I have to give props were it's due. We've got thousands of official feats from WOTC and only a handful of problematic ones. That's pretty impressive.

Give WOTC its due, they know how to build a damn solid game.

 

[Starfox]

It is odd. People keep saying ut it the classes in the PHB that are causing problems - cleric, druid, wizard. Yet in our games here, we've actually added to these classes (generally by making metamagic more attractive) and yet we've never really felt this to be an issue. It surely depends on the group.

 

[Ahnehnois]

It is odd. People keep saying ut it the classes in the PHB that are causing problems - cleric, druid, wizard. Yet in our games here, we've actually added to these classes (generally by making metamagic more attractive) and yet we've never really felt this to be an issue. It surely depends on the group.

I've done a lot of house rules, but certainly some of the big ones were favorable towards the casters. Because there were places I thought they needed help. Hasn't changed the nature of the game, hasn't been problematic.

 

[Doug McCrae]

It is odd. People keep saying ut it the classes in the PHB that are causing problems - cleric, druid, wizard. Yet in our games here, we've actually added to these classes (generally by making metamagic more attractive) and yet we've never really felt this to be an issue. It surely depends on the group.

To create a CoDoWzilla, the player requires both the knowledge and desire. If a cleric uses all her spell slots on healing then she won't outshine the fighter. If she uses divine power and righteous might then she will. Also, it only happens at mid to high level. At some point between level 5 and 10, certainly once teleport becomes available, the casters have the capability to become the driving force.

 

[N'raac]

I've had a variety of players from different backgrounds with absurdly different philosophies on gaming. Believe me, some of them dug pretty deep. Evokers are the most popular, but I've seen plenty of other casters. And the druid has always been pretty popular in my games. What's more powerful than a druid? I'm still not buying this notion that I have apparently missed some huge underlying issue with the game. How many casters would I have to see played before I had a decent sample size? How many games must I run before I can be sure that the system works?

Can, but shouldn't, and usually doesn't.

My experience is similar - no game breakers, but no one who seems especially inclined to break the game.

That's the thing though. DM's who do this a lot don't get weeded out over time. They keep on going and going and going. I've had this sort of experience with DM's who've run games for many years. They don't see anything wrong, because, like you, they feel that it's incumbent on the DM to change the rules whenever they feel it appropriate.

There must be enough players who approve of this style to enable these GM's to continue running games. If the GM is "bad", then he gets weeded out by a lack of players, If he still has players, then his game must be pleasing some players. Either that means he is not a "bad GM" or that this group is having badwrongfun and must be removed from gaming.

To create a CoDoWzilla, the player requires both the knowledge and desire. If a cleric uses all her spell slots on healing then she won't outshine the fighter. If she uses divine power and righteous might then she will. Also, it only happens at mid to high level. At some point between level 5 and 10, certainly once teleport becomes available, the casters have the capability to become the driving force.

When the cleric has used up all his spell slots, the fighter can keep going. As the cleric is not healing the team, I assume they have some other method of magical healing. If the game is sympathetic to letting the party rest and regain spells, such that they need never be judicious about their spell use, then the spellcaster becomes more powerful. Maybe the game needs some challenges that are more time-sensitive. I find a variety of challenges tends to result in less ability for a single character to overpower the game.

 

[Starfox]

I had a druid (played 1-20) in my campaign that started out as a CoDzilla, but ended up as almost a pure summoner and buffer, with a touch of warrior. It was simply more effective to buff summoned creatures and other party members than to buff only herself.

Earlier in a discussion like this, someone said it is more effective to cast a single Haste than several fireballs. Well, that is true if the DM goes easy on you. Here, you generally need Haste AND Fireball to finish a tough fight. But comparing the two, I agree Haste mostly is better.

What I find really affects the balance between casters and non-casters is the amount of magic items - warrior types benefit more from theirs, so many items shift the balance their way. We generally play rather high-magic games with lots of magic items, so this may account for our experiences. If the fighter has Wings of Flying and Necklace of Missiles, the wizard suddenly seems a lot less privileged.

 

[Dwimmerlied]

I think one of the chief reasons for this in all versions of D&D has been the proliferation of classes. In 3.x onwards the proliferation of feats probably doesn't help either.



I suspect it's the lack of sufficient play testing that causes such new classes and feats to be problematic.

This is my impression too, though I think it wasn't the base classes but prestige classes. Especially toward the end. I felt they were pumping out a lot of stuff because a lot of stuff sells, and playtesting was perhaps not practical (given the vast combinations possible). Exponentially more broken possibilities were generated with each new product, and people like to exploit that stuff. With those kind of combinations being unwittingly generated, the system really needed the failsafe of rule 0.

 

[Neonchameleon]

It's certainly possible to write a borked game system and for players (on both sides of the screen) to abuse a working system to the point where it doesn't work as intended.

I think one of the chief reasons for this in all versions of D&D has been the proliferation of classes. In 3.x onwards the proliferation of feats probably doesn't help either.

The problem with this theory is that if we look at the Class Tier System at least half the tier 1 classes are in the PHB (Wizard, Cleric, Druid) and three other PHB classes are Tier 5. The PHB is the single worst balanced book in the game. This is a pattern that remains true in 4e where at least one class is overpowered (ranger), one was underpowered but needed an errata nerf bat (wizard). Before Heroes of Shadow it was the worst balanced book in the game.

I think the problem is that the PHB always comes out before the game is fully mature and has been explored properly.

 

[Tuft]

I had a druid (played 1-20) in my campaign that started out as a CoDzilla, but ended up as almost a pure summoner and buffer, with a touch of warrior. It was simply more effective to buff summoned creatures and other party members than to buff only herself.

Earlier in a discussion like this, someone said it is more effective to cast a single Haste than several fireballs. Well, that is true if the DM goes easy on you. Here, you generally need Haste AND Fireball to finish a tough fight. But comparing the two, I agree Haste mostly is better.

What I find really affects the balance between casters and non-casters is the amount of magic items - warrior types benefit more from theirs, so many items shift the balance their way. We generally play rather high-magic games with lots of magic items, so this may account for our experiences. If the fighter has Wings of Flying and Necklace of Missiles, the wizard suddenly seems a lot less privileged.

Played in the campaign [MENTION=2303]Starfox[/MENTION] mentions above, and it still amazes me how smoothly it played up at level 20 (where we stayed for multiple adventures, including a massive AP finishing arc), at least from a players perspective. Before, I had heard a lot of bad things about high-level 3.5 play, so I had expected the worst, but instead it went great. Cannot speak for how it was from the DM's side of things, though, of course.

It was a very item-rich campaign, but people generally picked items fitting their characters, so it did not feel at all as if the items domineered the characters; rather, they were extensions and emphasises on the characters.

And I *do* subscribe to the theory above, that items smooth out the versatility differences between classes in a major way. Much more than they affect the general power curve, in fact. (The tier theory has been mentioned, and as far as I remember, it concerns itself more with versatlity than power.)