Once and for all- Is D&D magic overpowered?

[Desdichado]

Depends on whether you cut the other legs to match or not.

Nope, I've essentially removed that extraneous fourth leg altogether. My table is effectively three legged.

BTW, for this analogy to mean anything, what the heck are the other "legs" of D&D anyway?

 

[Telas]

The light just clicked on over my head. I am suddenly free of any and all threads regarding balance in D&D. No more will I have to sit through pages of accusations and recriminations of "broken" and "horrific unbalance". Ahhh, serenity...

Telas' Generic Rule for D&D Balance: D&D is as balanced as the DM who runs it.

If your game's unbalanced, fix it or leave it. Just because it's in the book doesn't mean it's on the table.

'Nuff sed

T

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

Just because it's in the book doesn't mean it's on the table.

T

No, it under the table in place of the missing leg.

I like your Generic Rule for D&D Balance. Very wise.

 

[WayneLigon]

Telas' Generic Rule for D&D Balance: D&D is as balanced as the DM who runs it.

You have See-en the Light, my son!

 

[WizarDru]

No, I don't think it is.

Saturday night, I watched a paladin kill a CR 25 creature in a single strike. But he couldn't have done it without the help of an arcane archer casting Glitterdust. The archer, on the other hand, could have done it by himself and the rogue was close behind (but both were also at risk). The mage, cleric and druid might all have been killed if not for the melee characters. Whereas two sessions previous, the exact opposite was true.

It's all good.

 

[MetalBard]

Nope, D&D magic is not overpowered. If anything, 3.5 edition spells seem to be less powerful (especially with respect to duration and relatively low saving throws) than previous editions' spells (I am mostly familiar with 2e with passing knowledge of 1e).

 

[VirgilCaine]

D&D magic is not unbalanced.

BUT it takes a careful GM to make sure its not unbalanced. If you don't let the magic users get away with breaking the rules, you should be ok.

Something else to remember... characters don't always spend money on magic items.

High level Wizards have to buy spell books and research spells. This costs tons of money. High level Wizards will rarely have any magic items other than their spellbooks.

High level Clerics need to establish a Temple. Again this costs lots of money.

High level Fighters can build a fortress again, costing lots of money.

So, your high level PCs/NPCs, even if they have a high GP value, might not have any magic items, because they might have spent their loot on more valuable items than magic.

Actually, clerics and fighters don't need to do either of those.

Wizards without cloaks of resistance are asking for death by some Fort spell. And besides, spells and research aren't nearly as required as you make out.
I don't "need" to research spells as a high-level wizard that I can negotiate with a guild or other wizard to trade with me for. If I wanted a better version of a PHB spell, and the DM has not already approved one as in widespread use, sure I'll research it. But I could just decide that researching is too much trouble.
Besides, we aren't talking about scrolls here either. IMO, I would buy scrolls before I researched a spell.

I'm on "your" side, but you aren't helping "us."

Besides, the mention of Contact Other Plane as some sort of fighter-killing spell (it's probably more dangerous to the wizard casting it) makes me think that your concerns are mostly theoretical, or maybe based on one incident where the circumstances went against the fighter.

This has to be the worst example of wizard power ever. There are no guidelines for what these powers know, even in 3.5. IMO, I have no idea how one would use information that they would know to beat a fighter. So it's really up to the DM.
IMO, you could ask where a center of power for that specific being contacted, or if there was a cleric nearby of that deity that would cast a powerful spell for the party or some question about some aspect of the power contacted. How this would directly help beat a fighter, I don't know...

 

[Gez]

Nope, I've essentially removed that extraneous fourth leg altogether. My table is effectively three legged.

BTW, for this analogy to mean anything, what the heck are the other "legs" of D&D anyway?

Melee combat is more efficient than ranged combat -- people are more likely to survive a crossbow shot than a sword blow.

Thieves are super-efficient at noticing and disarming traps, even magical ones, and at silencing the guards quickly.

That's it. The four legs of the D&D table are Tank, Scout, Medic, and Artillery.

Cutting magic out is effectively removing two of the legs. So you table is not three-legged, but two-legged. It just can't stand on its own. You have to continually control its fall to keep its equilibrium, just like on a bicycle. (One is always falling on a bicycle.)

So, D&D is a table, that when you cut its legs, becomes a bicycle.

 

[Desdichado]

I think it's a pretty poor analogy if almost every other RPG besides D&D works fine without those same legs, though. Clearly, they aren't "essential" legs to the roleplaying experience.

 

[interwyrm]

If they weren't, you'd have more than two classes with access to healing magic

Cleric, Druid, Bard.