Is 3rd edition too "quantitative"

[FireLance]

Gestahlts are insane. They're 3.5 too.

A gestalt character is certainly more powerful than an ordinary 3.5e character, but that's the whole point. They are there for players who want more powerful characters, and for DMs that allow them to. Naturally, if there are other players, they should have gestalt characters as well, or the balance between PCs goes out the window. In any case, you don't have to use gestalt characters if you don't want to.

PrC are omnipresent.

This isn't a problem in itself, as most PrCs are fairly well balanced, and allow for greater customization of PCs without significantly increasing their power relative to others of the same level. And of course, you don't have to use PrCs if you don't want to.

So if I apply the same logic as above all items are optional in 1st edition and up to the DM? Even with those items you don't kill balrogs, pitfiends, gelugons and the whole host of Type whatever devils and demons in one round without rolling a single die, no save no SR.
The 19th level MU has to contend with 60% magic resistance and is not even CLOSE to as damaging as the cleric. Try again if you really want but I'll be ultimately surprised if you can come even close to Andy Collin's uber broken holy word and the general 3.5 trend to not label caster level increase.
...
You've provided no actual experience or examinations of the rulesets. In fact you just claim vaguely "a fig/mu is overpowered" while I've provided an example of a core 3.5 cleric with a handful of magic items and a core 3.5 PrC that dwarfs anything seen in previous editions.
I don't know what you mean by "most basic 3e character" and most "tricked out 1e/2e character.
As far as I can tell the most "tricked out 1e/2e character" is a complete chump compared to a core rules 3.5 cleric with one spell and a hankering for caster level increase.
...
I've seen all editions of the game, I play a core 3rd edition game because I like the rules not because I think the rules are in any way "better balanced" than previous editions. Any claim to that effect is erroneous. 3rd edition characters are much more powerful than previous edition characters. The flexibility inherent in the system that allows you to increase ability scores without limits that always net you benefit is enough to prove that point. The flexibility inherent in a feats and skills and level for level multiclassing system is more than enough to prove that point. It's the quantitative nature of the system that allows this. Everything is the bigger bonus and the bigger bonus is everything.

I agree with you that your sample cleric is a problem, but I disagree as to what the problem is, and the cause of it.

I do agree that characters in 3.5e can do more cool things than characters in previous editions. However, whether or not a 3.5e character is more powerful than a 1e/2e character, and can easily defeat opponents that a character of equal level in previous editions would have a hard time doing is not an issue. You might as well ask why it's so easy to defeat a werewolf in Steve Jackson's Fighting Fantasy series, and so difficult to do so in the White Wolf Storyteller system. Or, to give a slightly more relevant example, why is it easier to defeat a mummy in D&D 3.0e than in 3.5e? The simple answer is that the designers decided to make the mummy tougher and increase its CR from 3 to 5. So, you would expect a group of 3rd-level PCs to defeat a mummy fairly easily in 3.0e (CR equal to level), but the same group of 3rd-level PCs would find a mummy to be a tough fight in 3.5e (CR two higher than level). Hence, the real issue is not how easily a character in any edition can defeat a specific creature, but how well the characters fare against the challenges they face, whatever they are. This is another aspect of balance: character level vs challenge rating. The sample cleric is a problem because he can easily defeat creatures that should be challenging encounters for a party of his level, not because he can defeat them easily when characters in previous editions could not.

And the cause of the problem is not because 3.5e is more quantitative. Every significant variable in the example you raised was quantified in every edition: caster level, spell resistance, saving throws, etc. In fact, the quantification of CR helps us to express what is wrong in more concrete terms: the cleric is out of balance because he is easily defeating challenges that should be difficult for a character of his level. What has changed is the interaction of the quantified variables (e.g. spell resistance is no longer a flat chance of spell failure, but dependent on the caster level) and the ability to modify the quantified variables (e.g. new ways to increase caster level). What has gone wrong here is stacking gone out of control. If the Good domain power, the bead of karma, the Hierophant's Spell Power ability and the orange ioun stone all provided Competence bonuses to caster level, then the problem would not be as bad as only the highest bonus would apply.

I can't even pick up a single 3rd edition or worse 3.5 supplement and find something that isn't broken in some horrible fashion or another. You're hamstrung to either re-write, ban, cross your fingers the players won't notice it or just forget about the whole supplement idea in the first place. I

I happen to take a more philosophical view. In any field of human endeavor, and especially in a field that is so dependant on creativity and imagination like role-playing, you have to keep bringing in new and fresh ideas, or you're going to get stagnation. You can either come up with the ideas yourself, or you can pay someone to do it for you (i.e. buy a supplement). Whenever there are new ideas, you're going to get good ones and bad ones. I think that one of the great things about the 3.5e system is that it is well-balanced enough that I can spot the bad ideas and change or ban them almost immediately. And even though I don't like them, maybe the ideas are only bad for my game. Perhaps they work great in someone else's game. In any case, I generally find that I get enough use out of the other ideas that I don't mind one or two bad ones, and buying a supplement and going through it to tweak or weed out the ideas I don't like is a lot less effort than coming up with all the ideas that I do like myself. Of course, YMMV.

 

[francisca]

The flexibility inherent in the system....

Come see the flexibility inherent in the system!
Come see the flexibility inherent in the system!
Help! Help! I'm being powergamed!

(with apologies to Eric Idle.)

Not that I don't agree with alot of your points, DM. I just can't pass up a Python reference when it comes along.

 

[Turjan]

Gestahlts are insane. They're 3.5 too. PrC are omnipresent.

Although I generally see your point, I don't think that gestalt characters help your cause. They are supposed to be overwhelming; that's their purpose .

I've seen all editions of the game, I play a core 3rd edition game because I like the rules not because I think the rules are in any way "better balanced" than previous editions. Any claim to that effect is erroneous. 3rd edition characters are much more powerful than previous edition characters.

I don't think you are completely right here, either. The 3E rules are more balanced than previous versions of the game. They are not perfect, no, but they are better. And I agree, 3rd edition characters are much more powerful than previous edition characters; that's why they need that balance so urgently.