Most overrated "broken" things?

[The Thayan Menace]

Arcane Deluge

Wild Mage + Practiced Spellcaster ... LINK




​

 

[Mistwell]

Yeah, Mist. I'm the first guy who suggested there was anything broken in the BoED.

Heck, I'm not even the first in this thread....

I object to you painting with a broad brush (and said so). I object to you dismissing entire books, and whole groups of things, when what you really mean is a few things are problematic. It's hyperbole. There is no need for it. You may in fact be persuading people to not even consider something in your overexuberance to name things you think are broken.

There are precious few PrC's that could be called underpowered.

Apostle of Peace, Beloved of Valarian, Celestial Mystic, Emissary of Barachiel, Exalted Arcanist, Initiate of Pistis Sophia, Lion of Talisid, Prophet of Erathaol, Risen Martyr, Sentinel of Bharrai, Skylord, Slayer of Domiel, Stalker of Kharash, Swamay, Sword of Righteousness, Troubadour of Stars, Vassak if Bahamut, Wonderworker....

MOST of those stink. Most have bad, and even disabling entry requirements. Do not go around telling people that you have to dismiss the ENTIRE group of prestige classes from that book to find anything not broken (which IS what you said). You're wrong. The prestige class list is not all broken. In fact, the overwhelming majority of it is not broken, and some are even underpowered. Have you EVER heard of someone taking a Skylord or Prophet of Erathaol or Emissary of Barachiel or Celestial MysticBeloved of Valarian? I have not.

Fist of Raziel,

Is good.

OTOH...or the Anointed Knight....or the the Champion of Gwynwhatever...or the Defender of Sealtel....or.....aw, to heck with it.

Actually most of those are average.

I'm tired of providing exhaustive evidence for my positions just to have somebody jump and go "I disagree" or "I agree" with the other guy. If I can't a real discussion going, then what's the point?

I'm just asking you to stop exaggerating to make your points. It *IS* a real discussion when someone challenges your views. You don't provide "exhaustive evidence". You often make wild claims, and when someone challenges you, you usually do what you just did...name a couple of things to back up your point (when you claims calls for a dozen things) and then claim people are picking on you. Nobody is picking on you. But when you say all the prestiges classes in a book are broken, you need to provide evidence that all the prestige classes in the book are broken. If it's instead only a minority, you need to say "sorry I misspoke, a minority of the prestige classes are broken, but they are so good that I would discourage people from that book if they have a choice between it and one of the more balanced books" or something like that.

 

[Nail]

It won't bring the game to a halt but ....

Clearly, we need a better definition of "broken".

Mine would be: "Much more (or much less) powerful than other options in the game when used in play (as opposed to some hypothetical build), with the primary measure of balance being the core classes in the 3.5e PH."

I've played the 3.xe game as long as everyone else here, and I've rarely found anything core to be broken in play. Typically, those core things that were once thought to be broken are now squarely in the "Most Overrated Broken Things" category.

 

[Felon]

MOST of those stink. Most have bad, and even disabling entry requirements. Do not go around telling people that you have to dismiss the ENTIRE group of prestige classes from that book to find anything not broken (which IS what you said). You're wrong.

Hey, look everybody, Mistwell has an opinion!

Note that all your rebuttal really amounted to was "Actually, no they're not overpowered. Those are average, most STINK. You're wrong." Really, you're not offering anything substantive; you're just making your own adamant-yet-vague assertions, so how are you any less guilty of the same crimes you're accusing me of--broad brushes and all that?

You often make wild claims, and when someone challenges you, you usually do what you just did...name a couple of things to back up your point (when you claims calls for a dozen things) and then claim people are picking on you.

See, Mist, the chief problem with what you're trying to do here is that it puts a burden on you that few people could carry without stumbling into the territory of hypocrisy. That sentence alone contained everything you accused me of--a wild generalization with vague particulars. I name you Mistwell of the Broad Brush.

Here's a wild claim for you: I doubt you know many people more clinical than me. The "Assay Resistance" thread in this forum is actually a good example of what I "usually" do. I present a logical case, talk about it exhaustively, intentionally phrase things in the form of questions to avoid putting words in people's mouths, wait for a suitably articulate rebuttal, and in the end rarely does anybody concede anything or really attempt to mount a counter-arguement. They typically just agree or disagree according to their gut feelings, and that's because that is what self-esteem means to a lot of folks; standing by your gut, and not even feeling like you have to support it (indeed, to do so would be a sign of self-doubt; ever seen Adaptation?). It also happens to require a lot less typing.

To be frank, it's fatiguing to put a lot of time and effort into an arguement that's just going to be hand-waived dismissively anyway, so why do it here? You are convinced of your position, it won't shift, yet you think I should provide a dozen examples anyway?

As to my "wild exaggerations", the fact is I provided a quick little list of broken things, no more pretentious than other posts made here. You put a magnifying glass on the issue, you chose not to challenge anyone else's "broad strokes". You are the provocateur here. Tell you what, you rise to the occasion this time instead of playing the easy role of the deconstructionist. And this time, I get to be the guy playing the glib "I'm entitled to my opinion" card. It'll be like a vacation.

In the interests of you not getting off on the wrong foot, I'll go ahead and point out that asserting authoritative knowledge of what nobody plays based purely on what people you know play is both hyperbolic and a wild claim. Come to think of it, I don't know how solid it is to argue that popularity and brokeness has a strong correlation. How many folks are really doing the Hulking Hurler War Hulk, despite all the threads that mention it? When was the last time you ran into an anthropomorphic baleen whale Frenzied Berserker? I suspect many DM's say no to them, like they'd say "no" to a lot of BoED content.

Me? I'd wager there's a stronger correlation between what's broken and what people joke about playing, but don't actually try to get away with.

 

[Felon]

Clearly, we need a better definition of "broken".

Mine would be: "Much more (or much less) powerful than other options in the game when used in play (as opposed to some hypothetical build), with the primary measure of balance being the core classes in the 3.5e PH."

I think the 3.5 designer comments about why they revised the haste spell touched on this line of thinking. They said they saw way too many mages writing haste on their spell lists in pen. It was such a great option that it wasn't worth considering not casting it at the start of any non-trivial encounter.

Clearly, there are few things so broken they actually cause a campaign to physically implode, so the definition does have to lend itself to some sort of inexhorable gravitational pull away from other options that should be attractive in their own right.

But I'm not sure I'd go with the PHB as the benchmark. If I consider the energy spheres spell from the Spell Compendium, it also has to be weighed against other SC spells, not just the PHB.

 

[Tetsubo]

I'm with you. Arguments against the spiked chain usually turn out to be "I just don't like it, it doesn't make sense."

That would be because the Spiked Chain is in fact silly. It may well be *mechanically* sound. But it is in no way, shape or form logically sound. It isn't "broken". It's just stupid beyond all reason.

 

[Moon-Lancer]

Clearly, there are few things so broken they actually cause a campaign to physically implode, so the definition does have to lend itself to some sort of inexhorable gravitational pull away from other options that should be attractive in their own right.

halking hurler combined with war halk, followers of mystra (casting in anti magic field), that monster in the feyrun book that was the base ability that created pun pun, at times shape change, that feat in complete arcane when its combined with mystic thurge or other dual arcane divine classes. the class in complete divines web expansion that lets you turn spells into su ablities 3 times a day,

those are the things i would call too powerful to the point that it breaks the game. Or at least they can if used improperly.

Why is it that the monk was thought to be very powerful and now is not? heck, now we think of the monk as one of the weakest classes. I think flashy classes have a way of influencing our notion of balance. The same happened to warlock now its subpar. Its now happening to warblade and to a lesser extent duskblade. to be fair dont think we will ever think the warblade will suck, but it is up their with clarics druids and wizards.

 

[Tetsubo]

Spiked chain - its the only exotic weapon remotely worth a feat, so therefore its "teh borken". Usually people dont know how attacks of opportunity are resolved (ie, letting them retrip when opponent stands or getting multiple AoO's from mvoement). Lets not forget ignoring melee cover either. Mainly its because fighters arent allowed to have nice things, so anything that looks remotely good on paper must be broken. The spiked chain brokenness is a good litmus test to see if a DM is incompetent or not. If you cant handle some dude possibly tripping your bad guys, just hang up your hat, because the wizard will make you dook your drawers by 5th level.

VoP actually is broken IMO, but for intra party play reasons rather than mechanical ones. It leads to inner party strife where treasure has to be divded equally, lest the guy in rags not get his share to throw at orphans. Also, he cant have money for bribes, flying mounts, etc, so he becomes the party mooch who must be handed something in order to use it (but he cant actually own it). Hes a walking inconvenience at upper levels.

I can handle anything a player can throw at me. But the Spiked Chain is just a stupid, poorly conceived idea. It has no place in any game that is even remotely based on reality. It is cheese pure and simple. It was introduced into the rules by people that have NO knowledge of how weapons actually work. And for a RPG, that is a pretty big failing...

 

[Moon-Lancer]

very true, and i find the art of the spiked chain is partly to blame... however I find many people use this argument but it does not help or prove the claim that its broken. Its really a argument that appeals to consequence of how silly it is thus it must be broken. I really don't mind visualizing it working much like ivy's sword.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

I can handle anything a player can throw at me. But the Spiked Chain is just a stupid, poorly conceived idea. It has no place in any game that is even remotely based on reality. It is cheese pure and simple. It was introduced into the rules by people that have NO knowledge of how weapons actually work. And for a RPG, that is a pretty big failing...

Since when was D&D based on reality?

No, seriously.