Is D&D getting too powerful?

[A'koss]

I've played every edition from from the original D&D booklets and will say that the d20 mechanics are the best they've ever had.

However, the d20 philosophy of ever-escalating power shows that they've forgotten the good elements of game balance from earlier editions. That is, you need to reign in earlier and compress the mechanics disparities between the classes. 3e holds up well until ~10th level or so. This is when the game should really start to reign in the classes.

I don't many will argue that very high level and epic level play are problematic. Saving throws for weak save characters only get worse, hit point disparities between the classes grow to an almost absurd level, combat ability disparities, save or die/nerf spells with huge DCs, skills that can be abused, rince and repeat resurrections, etc. I'm sure everyone has their own pet peeves at this level.

It's a power gamers paradise right now (hell, it's actively promoted!) and while I know 3.5e won't change anything I do hope that WotC does learn from this when 4e comes around.


A'koss.

 

[CRGreathouse]

I hated 2nd edition. It was complex to play in, had different mechanics for each problem, and wasn't customizable. I remember having lots of problems with powergaming (Blade kit, two-weapon fighting wishout penalty, by-the-book custom classes that were absurdly powerful by the time other characters were 3rd level, etc.).

Every class had their own XP chart. Thieves got XP for gp. There were no guidelines for a starting DM on treasure (other than "a first level party shouldn't have more than a +1 weapon"). Monster difficulty was hard to judge, and wasn't scaled well to XP (ogre magi, anyone?).

Abilities didn't improve. Classes couldn't wear armor or wield weapons not on their list. NWPs didn't get better -- unless you payed double, giving just +1 (an Int 14 blacksmith with smithing once was better than one with Int 10 who took it 3x). The artwork in the Monstrous Manual looked like cartioons -- bad cartoons, for the most part.

Multiclassing and dual-classing was complicated enough that some of my DMs wouldn't allow it because of the complexity. Once you started a class, you couldn't add another. All members of a given class at the same level were the same. Humans and fighters were so rare that having either in a group was unusual -- unless you had a paladin, since they could be only human. All other classes had racial restrictions, as well as ability restrictions. (Cha 16? Sorry, you just can't be a paladin.)

Yes, I stopped playing around the 2E years. I came back when I learned 3E was coming out. While it didn't fix all of the problems, it's a godsend for me.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Y'know I think I agree with that 3rd edition is heavily focused on level gain. I remember in 2nd edition it took several sessions for my characters to gain a level. Nowadays we have to hold back on the combats just so that we don't level up every session.

How long are your sessions?

If you're going by the official CR system in the DMG, it requires 13 to 14 encounters (assuming each encounter is more or less of the same CR as the party's average level) to gain a level.

Now, people's gaming styles differ, I know that. But I know that in my campaigns--both run and played--we tend to average 0 to 2 major combats (and maybe a few minor encounters as well) per game.

Now, I don't use the CR system; I base XP entirely on the concept of story awards, RP, and clever ideas. It doesn't change the fact, though, that if you're leveling every session, you've got to be playing either seriously long sessions, an extremely combat-heavy game, or your DM has adjusted the XP system with his own house rules--which, by definition, can't the be considered a problem with 3E.

 

[Tarrasque Wrangler]

And in case you haven't noticed, I go out of my way to be politically incorrect, wether it applies to this comment or not.

Sorry to continue the OT, but a word to Angcuru: I've read many of your posts, and very often you have some cogent points, but your attitude really puts others off. Can the rhetoric and just talk about the game, you don't need to insult people to get your point across. It's a cheap, trollish tactic and you don't strike me as trying to be cheap or trollish.

Back to topic. Did 2e have a different feel? In as much as it made me FEEL like not playing, I guess it did. I understand what you said about XPs. It can get difficult if you don't have a group of 4 equal-leveled PCs. But at the same time, I like that the XP scale slides with the power of the monster vs. the threat level of the party, something OD&D, 1E, and 2E couldn't model. If you are getting in as much combats as you make it sound, your DM probably would have needed a calculator anyway under the old system, and now at least the totals scale with the difficulty of the fight.

But none of that is really -feel-. I guess I just got tired, as a DM and player, of older editions constantly telling me what I couldn't do. No dwarven mages. No elven paladins. Every ranger needs to have stats that would make Wolverine vomit with envy. One-HP-wonder wizards. A skill system no one could figure out, and rarely got used when you did.

And maybe 3.5 is increasing the power scale, but it appears that the monsters are getting at least as powerful upgrades, so if everything is scaling up, it all should even out. As always, time and use will tell, and we should all reserve condemnations until we actually see the whole thing first.

 

[Mathew_Freeman]

3e and 3.5e are much better balanced. Yeah, so a first level guy can do amazing amounts of damage. So can an orc *shrug* d12+3 is a lot of damage for a CR1/2 creature. Two hits with that will knock out most characters, and a group of orcs remain a serious threat, in terms of criticals anyway, for several more levels.

Everything's been scaled up. it all depends how evil you want to be about it

And whatever else may happen, the players are responsible for how "munchkinny/powergamery" they are, not the system. It's perfectly possible to play without an overpowered character, because if you do, the DM will hopefully not have to spend so much time on overpowered opponents, and you don't end up with the "D&D arms race", either.

 

[Psion]

well, I'm just rather annoyed that 3rd edition has become so stuffed with house rules to compensate for WotC's incomptency that I want a new edition. This one's broken.

I find that 3e is superior in almost (not quite) every way to 2e, and I have FAR FEWER house rules that strive to "fix" the system than under 2e. And I do not want a new edition.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

It's perfectly possible to play without an overpowered character, because if you do, the DM will hopefully not have to spend so much time on overpowered opponents, and you don't end up with the "D&D arms race", either.

Which we all know the DM would win, anyways.

I find that 3e is superior in almost (not quite) every way to 2e, and I have FAR FEWER house rules that strive to "fix" the system than under 2e. And I do not want a new edition.

Here I'm the opposite. In 2e, most of my house rules were simply designating which system was being used from which book with minor tweaks + original material. Now, my house rules are rewrites of entire components that I don't like (as well as adjustments to systems effected by it).

I finally just edited the SRD, added my stuff in, and slapped an OGL on it.

 

[Gothmog]

I'd have to agree that the power level of D&D does keep creeping up. As to whether this is a bad or good thing depends on your style of play. Personally, I don't care for high-powered play much, but to each his own.

Having said that, the core system of 3E is much better than 1E or 2E. The way skills and feats are handled are much more realistic. Likewise, BAB and saves in 3E are much easier to work with than the old THAC0 and saves of 1E and 2E. The classes are more balanced against each other, and no race is overwhelmingly more powerful than the others now (elves anyone?). The new multiclassing rules are great, and encourage character development (as long as the DM keeps an eye out for munchkins).

What is a problem to some people at least is the assumption in the core rules that every game is going to be high-powered. Yeah, I know- everyone can make their own house rules (which I do), but some people take the books as gospel and balk when house rules are introduced. In particular, the main problems are:

1) Very fast leveling rate- It is assumed that PCs level every 13 or so encounters assuming equal party level CR encounters by the books. I feel that such fast progression doesn't give the characters adequate time to develop and explore their abilities before gaining a new level. In a sense, 3E is very video-gamish- its all about the power-ups.

2) Reliance on magic items at higher levels. Although all versions of D&D have had this flaw, its especially bad in 3E. It is assumed that PCs need certain levels of magic in order to survive and advance in 3E. While its not hard to restrict magic items, it is annoying that the whole CR/XP/magic item system is so interlinked that if you want to change one part of that equation, you have the throw out the other aspects as well. What I ended up doing was giving story awards for XP, and not worrying about XP per kill or CR.

3) Uncapped character abilities at high levels. In 1E and 2E, after 10-12th level, character advancement and capabilities slowed down. I think A'koss is right here, after 10th level, the game needs to reign in the classes somewhat and restrict power, otherwise its an ever-increasing power escalation of PC vs NPC power. Hit points, saves, and AC become so disparate at higher levels for PCs in the same party that the DM has to be much more careful what he thows at the PCs, or some of the PCs will be useless. For example, fighters need monsters with high HP and AC to be challenged, but then the other classes can't hit them, or substantially contribute to a combat. On the other hand, creatures with high DR are pretty much immune to the fighters, and require spellcasters to deal with. And realistically, how many level 12+ characters and/or monsters are there in a world to throw against the PCs? It becomes increasingly hard to justify increasingly powerful opponents in the world.

Not to mention the whole Power Play blurb atrocity in Dragon- that's evidence enough that 3E has been geared toward a powergamerish type of play. I still like 3E, but hopefully WoTC will reign in the power levels a little bit by the time 4E comes around.

 

[Wormwood]

I still like 3E, but hopefully WoTC will reign in the power levels a little bit by the time 4E comes around.

"All indications point to No"

 

[seasong]

The Problem Is Not In The System.

Ever since I came to this realization, my dungeon mastering has been improving by incredible leaps and bounds. So has my playing. And you know what? Suddenly I'm discovering that there don't seem to be so many problems with the system, after all.

Dark Eternal, this may be obvious, but I feel a need to point it out. To use your horse example, if a pony can't run a quarter mile in record time compared to a charger, you don't blame the pony. It's definitely not the pony's fault. But if you need to run the quarter mile in record time, you also DON'T USE THE PONY.

It's not the pony's fault or the rider's fault that the pony can't run that fast. It's the rider's fault for USING A PONY.

Same with D&D. The power level of D&D isn't a problem - but it DOES mean that the system can't handle certain kinds of campaigns very well compared to less power-level-intensive systems. And with a game system, there's two ways to fix that; replace your charger with a pony, or upgrade the pony with some house rules.