Is D&D getting too powerful?

[Dougal DeKree]

Since we are talking about D&D, i have to say "No."

I play D&D since it exists (1st Ed - what do you guys mean with 1st ed AD&D anyways? Isn't AD&D the 2nd ed D&D??) and we always had fun with the old edition and still sometimes have.

Then we had AD&D - never had fun with it, so never liked it, ...

Now there is 3E - i had tons of fun with it and think it is much better in than both previous versions in several aspects, since you don't have to stick to one class and can build up a concept. Maybe the concept converges with a PrC and if so, fine.
We played low magic, high magic, oneshots, campaings...it was all fun (except when some houserules really tweaked the system too far...).
Of course some people say "too powerful" because they want something else. And still they can use 3E to get what they want.
So, really, where is the problem?

Dougal DeKree, gnomish simpleton Illusionist

 

[Simulacrum]

Now *this* I had a good laugh at. My response? "I think not." If you want escalation, it's the ridiculous attack bonuses in 3e. They now increase at the same rate as damage - but AC has remained pretty much the same throughout the editions.

If players can't hit something with a +11 AC bonus (AC 21), I'm quite happy and willing to shout out "incompetent". By lousy 4th or 5th level, you should be hitting that AC regularly - the PCs in my game do, and they've been created "standard", using only WotC core book stuff.

The only fix I can think of (if WotC insists on keeping a single, standard bonus for an ability score) is for everything to get an AC boost!

(As a few posters have noted in the past: "in 3e, it's all about the damage, baby.")

You obviously see it from another angle, but you are wrong.
+11 AC is just the armor...lets see +1 the magic ring +1DEx now we got AC 23. (by 5th level)
Now all my fighters take expertise (+5AC always on except where the enemy is SUPAWEAK), and dodge for the must have spring attack...+1 (+2 in 3.5)
Now I'm like AC 30 and I always take close quarter fighting against those nasty grapplers.
Now who the hell is going to hit AC 30 by 5th level except the super specialized Attack bonus fighter/barbarian?
How far can you push the attack bonus til then? +13?
(and not all fighter types are halforc barbs, who cant wear effective armor, thus having a big penalty here)
And even then the chances for hitting are extremely low.
Most monsters with an CR equal to the party level cant hit exept on a 20. thats a fact.
I fought a solar one day (with the improved expertise feat) and guess what...he didnt hit me for shiit.

And NO NO NO D&D is about the AC,CON and saves baby.

On top of that, what can anything except an high-end-basher do to touch such a tank (and boy this is quite a common tank)
rouges? bards? monks???

And just think how much pressure it takes upon the DM to throw something at this tank to challenge him? Without being ridiculously cheesy all the time.
The same goes for most monsters on the higher end, who the hell except the OPTIMIZED FOR COMBAT chracters can ever hope to just even touch them? (here is the point where your rant about exessive BAB progression starts to jump in)
But you have to admit that all the BAB escalation and magic weapon grabbing is coming from the too high AC level that starts to kick in about the 5th level or CR equivalent....think of it!
A normal bunch of 1st level cityguard fighters can try to hit the tank all day long and not score a single hit while you laugh at them and cut them down to size.
And I'm talking about a very much possible 5th level fighter made with the 25 - 32 (standard) pointbuy system.

edited for clarification

 

[jasper]

Absolutely. D&D does not do a good job at supporting elaborate plots, complex mysteries, arduous journeys, taut suspense, or moral shades of grey…
True but I have seen plenty moral shades of grey from players

Sorcerer's insta-gained spontaneous casting,… which is what I home ruled back in first for all spell casters. Gave more variety to spells being laid down on the monsters.

Video game feel ha ha ha I played in similar games in the early eighties. Only we didn’t have the words,

Technik4 I play in FR campaign etc etc What right does DM tell me NO on an approved FR prestige class.
The answer is it is HIS the DM FR campaign which may be slightly different that the OFFICIAL FR campaign. That why I like the original Greyhawk just a map with the cities and general history. And the knowledge I could change it regardless of what the dragon or modules said.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

I've been told I run a game that is too slavishly devoted to the 1e D&D concepts. I take that as a compliment. If you don't like what restrictions I put on my Greyhawk game to keep it from decending into the FR level then go play in someone elses game. There are no half dragons, Tieflings, Savage Species stuff, no archmage PRC's, no Oozemasters, no Fangs of Lolth, etc. I like to run a game that is humancentirc and true to my vision of D&D. The current game has gone on for two years and the only complaint I had was when I told one guy he couldn't play a Dwarven Sorcerer since Dwarves are non magical and there are no Sorcerers. He shrugged and moved on.

 

[mirzabah]

I've been told I run a game that is too slavishly devoted to the 1e D&D concepts. I take that as a compliment. If you don't like what restrictions I put on my Greyhawk game to keep it from decending into the FR level then go play in someone elses game. There are no half dragons, Tieflings, Savage Species stuff, no archmage PRC's, no Oozemasters, no Fangs of Lolth, etc. I like to run a game that is humancentirc and true to my vision of D&D. The current game has gone on for two years and the only complaint I had was when I told one guy he couldn't play a Dwarven Sorcerer since Dwarves are non magical and there are no Sorcerers. He shrugged and moved on.

Can I come and play in your game?

 

[ced1106]

Well, as a AD&D GM, I always had the darnedest time keeping those PCs alive at 1st and 2nd level. Players would min/max their stats, but one or two hit dice, no matter how well modified, wouldn't save you from a few lucky hits. I also find it kinda n/a to compare 2e vs 3e in terms of power levels. If you don't want to play a munchkinism game, try a different system. Or, better, yet, try a different sort of **adventure**. Before the PCs obtain diviniation spells, run a few investigative adventures. Try out a city adventure, if your players understand that you can't fight an entire town.

I think 3e's greatest / least used mechanic are Skills. Power doesn't matter when you can't get past a city bureaucrat!


Cedric.
aka. Washu! ^O^

 

[KDLadage]

This is one of the reasons I think 4th edition is well on it's way. 3rd edition is basically the down-syndrome-infected D&D edition. It was potentially good, but they just HAD to go and mess it up. I mean, the experience system ALONE is enough reason to redo it. You need a masters in algebra and a scientific calculator to figure out wether or not you halfling gained a level in barbarian!

Note to self: Add Angcuru to kill-file.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

Can I come and play in your game?

Get in line, dude.

 

[trancejeremy]

I don't think so. If anything, until the Epic Book came along, 3E wasn't powerful enough.

I was a big D&D fan (Basic-Expert-Companion-Masters-Immortals), and in it, you had 36 levels as a mortal, then 36 more as an immortal. And then, then, it was just possible there was more, but it was sort of left open.

There was all sorts of high-level stuff done in modules that was a lot of fun. Mostly all sorts of weird planar travel, but building kingdoms, fighting wars, etc.

Anyway, it really should be up to the GM and the players what sort of game they want. I think 3E works pretty well for most styles of play.

(This is also why I hate the idea of a Hackmaster version of the old D&d Known World/ Mystara. As far as I know, Hackmaster is a combo of 1E & 2E AD&D, both of which are really unsuitable for that setting. IMHO)