Is D&D getting too powerful?

[mirzabah]

Yeesh.

Stop now before this gets political.

BTW, since a talk of politics is banned on this forum then I think by the same virtue all forms of political correctness MUST be banned as well.

Being polite is one thing. Having the steaming offal that is PC (Political Correctness not P'Cat ) shoved down your throat is completely different.

There's a pretty big difference between dissing someone for using epithet like "down syndrome infected" and shoving political correctness down their throats.

Likewise, there is a huge difference between "politics" and "political correctness". They might share a word root, but politics has nothing to do with political correctness, but I'm guessing that you knew that already and are being deliberately obtuse

For the record, I am very much against the brand of political correctness that insists on increasingly elaborate circumlocations to avoid acknowledging that some people are to varying degrees deaf, mute, blind, lame, or (yes) mentally retarded. Those are all perfectly good, serviceable words and it is only when they are used in an insulting fashion that they become problematical. If you choose a different label, then the same idiots that used the old labels insultingly will simply switch to the new ones.

I am, however, for the kind of political correctness that says we shouldn't marginalise, insult or otherwise disrespect those that fall into the above categories.

Cheers,
Mirzabah.

 

[Simulacrum]

I love 3e, and even more so 3.5e and the changes it will (hopefully) bring. 3eFR is the best thing I have ever played and it keeps getting better with each book.

I'm not a blind fanboy and I know the flaws of the game very well.
Still the system has an inner beauty and some amazing consistency to offer like no other game. Of course its not perfect, but what the hell did we expect? Give them time to improve this matter.

The things that really need some looking at for future editions are:

AC: (holy cow no.1) is way too powerful as it is now...a fighter in full plate and 3.5e tower shield will have +11 AC and is virtually untouchable for most characters (exept the grapplers and other high strength fighters)
And it gets worse with levels / monsters. Too much AC escalation.
AC needs to be halfed into Defelction and Damage reduction.-->
Fullplate: DR: 3 Deflection: 5 (as the best deflection armor type)
DR should stack with natural DR etc...
AC should be more reasonable all in all.
Part of that problem is the way Magic items are woveninto the game. They are a way too big factor (just look at the AC's of some monsters). Stacking of magic items and effects is just redicolous sometimes. I completely agree with what others have written about this above.

Saving throws boni are not that well done as they could have been, but all in all it seems to work...for me at least.

Save or die spells should be undone completely to make spell DC's and any related feats and features less powerful.
or alternatively give the choice for killing (that in turn should grant save bonuses for the victim) or some weaker variant.
that affects more targets / has a different effect.

CR and ECL should be point buy (and equivalent) dependent too.
It is a joke that a 46 pointbuy character gets teh same EXP as a 25 pointbuy equivalent.

just some thoughts but all in all I'm very happy with how the 3rd edition turned out. Yes some mistakes should have been spotted by the play testers back in the days...

 

[JacktheRabbit]

I think the problem is your definition of "munchkin." Your tone relays an assumption -- that you think high-damage-dealing characters are munchkins, and that those who choose to make such characters aren't really looking to roleplay, just "rack up points," so to speak. While your statement may be correct some of the time, I don't think it's correct all of the time.

I equate munchkin to players who create characters who do one thing and one thing only. It is the two weapon fighter who sinks EVERY feat into it.

It is the spellcaster who spell focuses and takes other feats to maximize only casting spells.

Munchkin to me in simply 1 dimensional characters.

 

[Arnwyn]

The things that really need some looking at for future editions are:

AC: (holy cow no.1) is way too powerful as it is now...a fighter in full plate and 3.5e tower shield will have +11 AC and is virtually untouchable for most characters (exept the grapplers and other high strength fighters)
And it gets worse with levels / monsters. Too much AC escalation.

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.")

 

[JacktheRabbit]

There's a pretty big difference between dissing someone for using epithet like "down syndrome infected" and shoving political correctness down their throats.

Likewise, there is a huge difference between "politics" and "political correctness". They might share a word root, but politics has nothing to do with political correctness, but I'm guessing that you knew that already and are being deliberately obtuse

For the record, I am very much against the brand of political correctness that insists on increasingly elaborate circumlocations to avoid acknowledging that some people are to varying degrees deaf, mute, blind, lame, or (yes) mentally retarded. Those are all perfectly good, serviceable words and it is only when they are used in an insulting fashion that they become problematical. If you choose a different label, then the same idiots that used the old labels insultingly will simply switch to the new ones.

I am, however, for the kind of political correctness that says we shouldn't marginalise, insult or otherwise disrespect those that fall into the above categories.

Cheers,
Mirzabah.

I disagree. Any and all PC comments should be banned from the forum since by their very nature they are political statements.

It is one thing to be polite and expect politeness. PC people though often use it as a weapon and I really do not want any part of that around here.

 

[JacktheRabbit]

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.")

I agree, attack leaves defence WAY behind in 3e.

Also 3e goes that extra step since it is so minis focused. That fighter in the heavy armor is very restricted on the battlefield and when usign minis that 33% reduction in his movement rate really gets noticed.

 

[mystraschosen]

NO dnd is not too powerful...


How do you like that lenghty oratation?

 

[Valiantheart]

I also agree there is a substantial 3E power creep but for a reason I dont think anyone else has really addressed yet: Prestige Classes.

What was once a suggestion for campaign customization has become a steady stream of more powerful classes. It seems with each supplement that is released they are trying to outdue a PrC that came before. The worst part is most people accept them! They justify these more powerful classes because there are prerequisites in order to choose them, but that doesnt solve the fact that many of these classes are significantly more powerful than any of the standard 3E classes.

Take for example the Archmage. For a couple of spell slots you character is essentially gaining 5 very high level feats and not losing any spell casting ability. The Arcane archer gives you infinite magical arrows. I dont even want to discuss the Mystic Theurge.

They have become the new version of broken kits except now it seems everybody likes them.

 

[fusangite]

I would agree with those who say that 3E is more balanced than previous editions. I would further back up those who say that the relative power of the characters has not increased -- civilian populations have become tougher, along with monsters, etc. I would also agree that the experience system and other things can be tweaked slow down advancement.

All that stated, it is also true that the absolute power of the characters has escalated disturbingly. I don't really have a quarrel with that except that a lot of the game balancing and power increases take the form of magic. Just look at 1E to 3E conversions of classic adventures like Keep on the Borderlands; every conversion I've seen fills the caves with spellcasters.

The big problem I have with 3E D&D is that it makes magic so common and everyday that it warps the feel of the game. Over half the core classes have spells; virtually every prestige class has spells. Furthermore, because all this extra magic functions not only to make characters more powerful in an absolute way but also is the primary way of maintaining game balance, it's much harder to give D&D a low-magic (or even just regular magic) feel; if you take out magic, balance starts to go haywire.

Something really does change in the feel of the game when the average 1st level spellcaster casts 7 spells a day instead of 1.

Now, I have adapted to this as best I can. Fortunately, I did most of my gaming from 1986-96 in the Runequest system which also made magic quite everyday (though decidedly less flashy than D&D).

 

[navriin]

Attacks definately outweigh AC. It's hard to make an unhitable (sp?) character without nixing your chance to hit as well (the Superior Expertise route).

As far as Prestige classes, here here!

95% of the are utter powergaming crud. I too get tired of people saying that this prestige class is balanced because you have to wait to 10th level to qualify for it or because you had to take skill focus to get into it. Waiting a few levels or taking a 'useless' feat does not balance an uber-prestige class out. It just means you wait a little longer to get your ultimate power.

I ended up having to ban all prestige classes from my game except ones that served a specific organizational role, and those I checked for balance (most of them are home-brewed)

Also, I remember when the Diablo setting for 2nd ed came out with all the charts for the gobs of magic goodies with multiple functions I thought it was funny, then 3rd ed came out, and it had the same charts...*pines for the day you can make a high level character who is NOT dependant on his magic items*.

I think the problem is that designers are caving more and more into the video game mentality of baldur's gate and Diablo by handing out easy xp and item upgrades to keep people happy. Obviously this sells, and I can't begrudge a company for making money, but if you keep giving the kiddies the toys eventually they grow tired of them and look elsewhere for entertainment. After you find out it is fairly easy to get your +5 vorpal doom sword of unconquerable defense, what *else* do you ask for? where's the challenge? (so i'm exaggerating a little)

And yes, I still play D&D, though admittedly I'm working on a magic-low magic-rare d20 system atm.