It's different/It's easy, therefore it's powerful

[Cadfan]

1. When something is new and broken, it *feels* more broken than something that is old and broken. This is because everyone gets used to the old broken thing, and finds ways to work around its brokenness. I think that's got a lot to do with how people react to psionics in 3e. They don't compare it to arcane or divine magic straight up, they compare it to arcane or divine magic combined with years of experience working around the rough edges of the system.

2. Many things that are broken work well in certain contexts. Or to put it another way, some things are more broken in some contexts than in others. If your primary experience of the game is in a particular context then you will have different opinions about what is or is not broken than something who plays in many contexts or who doesn't play in your particular context.

In my area we mostly played 3e from levels 3 to 9. We were really light on magic items compared to a lot of other groups, particularly on things like metamagic rods. These are levels where the game works relatively well, and where a psion's ability to channel all of his power points into a moderate number of top level powers is noticeably better than the wizard's ability to cast two, maybe three top level powers in a day, particularly when you aren't really getting in four fights per day, just one, maybe two big ones. Its also a level where the warlock's unlimited access to things like flight, invisibility, or basic teleportation can be disruptive, particularly if you're not accustomed to it.

So that's not really to excuse DM reticence. But maybe it explains it a little?

 

[thewok]

The funny part being the DM never considrered until that day that my 'eldritch blast' was 1d6 less then a rouge sneak attack, and it was byitself...no +1 flaming frost screaming keen short sword to add 4d6 more to it....

This is similar to what I encountered when I played a warlock in a 3.5 game. Yeah, I could hit people from 250 feet away, and I could fly. But that was pretty much it. My ability to keep firing eldritch blasts round after round was paid for with low damage potential and a lack of real utility. We only got up to level 8. I will admit that at level 1 and 2, it seemed to be really awesome, considering magic missile only did 1d4+1, and the wizard only had one missile. But after a while, my damage was overshadowed by the rogue and the warrior.

What looks over/underpowered on paper isn't actually so in application. I think the problem is that a lot of GMs just don't want to have to deal with new rules or something.

 

[Orius]

I felt the sorcerer was a bit too powerful early on because he got more starting spell slots than the wizard. Though IME, the sorc potentially has a harder time keeping up with the wizard over the long run, because as the wizard levels, she knows more spells than the sorc, has bonus feats which makes Craft Wand easier to take as a feat and as a result, the wizard can sit back and prepare things like scrolls and wands with lesser used utitlity spells while the sorc has a very limited pool of magic. So the wizard ends up being able to do just about anything with the right amount of preparation, while the sorc feels like a limited trick pony.

The psion has the potential to be pretty strong too I suppose. I have little experience with psionics myself, and have only dealt with it in a few 2e campaigns. The advantage to psion is that he draws from a mana pool rather than having fixed spell slots, which means he's even better at using whatever power is needed on the spot than the sorcerer. Whether that makes him gamebreaking or not I can't really say.

But in any case, anyone experienced with 3e knows the three big powerhouses are cleric, druid, and wizard. The wizard can do just about anything with the right spell selection, but does have squishy problems. The other two of course can become CoDzilla. I don't know if psions can really come close to a massively buffed combat cleric, or the ugly druid/monk combo with massive unarmed bonuses in wild shape and the Wis/AC bonus (gets even worse with epic levels). I know the sorc really can't.

 

[amethal]

I don't know if psions can really come close to a massively buffed combat cleric, or the ugly druid/monk combo with massive unarmed bonuses in wild shape and the Wis/AC bonus (gets even worse with epic levels). I know the sorc really can't.

Well, there is the sorcerer/monk feat in Complete Adventurer (I think) that allows you to add your charisma bonus rather than your wisdom bonus to your AC.

 

[Orius]

But that's not core. The wiz/cleric/druid doesn't need to go outside core to be powerful. The original examples of CoDzilla showed just how sick powerful a cleric could be without stepping outside of core.

 

[Aus_Snow]

Out of curiosity, I've been digging around, and I've found a lot of people think the two most powerful characters in 3.5 are, in fact, the psion and the sorcerer.

Conventional wisdom dictates that it is the Wizard, Cleric and Druid. Sometimes Wizard, Druid, Cleric. Anyway, those three.

Sorcerer has often been thought of as an underdog, if anything - also, plain and boring. Psion, kinda both. That is, overpowered in some ways - potentially - but quite hampered in others.

I guess I just haven't come across this kind of thinking, even online. Except maybe when it comes to the Warlock, for some GMs. But for me, I just plain dislike them, because (IMO) they are naff. Put another way, I'd never allow them, but it's not about power/balance/whatever.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Conventional wisdom dictates that it is the Wizard, Cleric and Druid. Sometimes Wizard, Druid, Cleric. Anyway, those three.

Sorcerer has often been thought of as an underdog, if anything - also, plain and boring. Psion, kinda both. That is, overpowered in some ways - potentially - but quite hampered in others.

I guess I just haven't come across this kind of thinking, even online. Except maybe when it comes to the Warlock, for some GMs. But for me, I just plain dislike them, because (IMO) they are naff. Put another way, I'd never allow them, but it's not about power/balance/whatever.

That's more or less what I'm saying though - conventional wisdom need not apply.

Wizards, druids, and clerics, are more powerful then sorcerers. But sorcerers are easier for new players to get around and use then traditional Vancian casting. As such, a lot of DMs - or so I'm thinking - feel sorcerers are more powerful if only because they've seen more sorcerers who are strong then wizards.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Definitely. What I'm mostly doing to reduce the effectiveness of going nova is using waves of enemies.
Also, the psion is often the one that has to deal with stuff noone else can deal with (or not as effectively), e.g. dispelling things. Since the psion is therefore prevented from using his direct attack powers most of the time, he's less likely to overshine others.

So the psion is limiting the kind of encounters you can throw at the party, he can do things no one else can and he deals more damage. That's pretty much all the indicators that the character is OP.

 

[wotmaniac]

So the psion is limiting the kind of encounters you can throw at the party, he can do things no one else can and he deals more damage. That's pretty much all the indicators that the character is OP.

well, seeing as how the entire CR/encounter design concept that the game was designed around is based on 4-5 encounters per day .... your statement seems a little empty to me.

 

[Aus_Snow]

Wizards, druids, and clerics, are more powerful then sorcerers. But sorcerers are easier for new players to get around and use then traditional Vancian casting. As such, a lot of DMs - or so I'm thinking - feel sorcerers are more powerful if only because they've seen more sorcerers who are strong then wizards.

So you're thinking, yes. Me, I've *never* heard such a thing, on- or offline. Until now, that is.

I think it's more likely that the vast majority of 3e DMs have had one of the following attitudes towards it all: a) don't know; b) don't even care in the first place; c) look at everything not 'core' as suspect, and quite possibly power creep; d) listen to (and agree with) the many vocal types online repeating the mantra of CoDzilla and Wizards being teh zupapowaz; or e) go through everything for themselves, sorting out what's what, according to their own needs, preferences, opinions, etc. And if we're talking 'e' here in any particular case, I seriously doubt they'd start by nerfing the Sorcerer! (for example) - I mean, they're a whole spellcasting level behind all the other full casters. . . ouch. . . and that's right there in front of them, one of the first things they'd see.

Also, traditional 'Vancian' casting isn't hard to understand, IME. I'm saying this as a DM who has introduced a fair few players to 3e, over several years. Sure, YMMV, and I respect that. But, what you're saying doesn't necessarily apply beyond your own experiences. Or maybe, not very far. *shrug*