WotC mistakes that cause you headaches -

[jensun]

Shapechange, far and away the most broken thing printed. Remove the ability to gain (Su) stuff and it's much better. For instance, your AMF cage match should have involved a Shapechange into a beholder instead of an antimagic field.

Probably true and I entirely agree that Shapechange would be added to the top of my list of broken things. I still cant fathom why they thought the spell needed a buff from its 3e version.

Turn Undead.

Again yes, Undead HD increase too fast for their CR rating and making any attempt to turn them a waste of your action. It similarly affects Rebuking and any attempt by the rules to have Undead archvillians with horde of minions.

Wish. Again, not because it's too powerful. The 5,000xp price tag means it never gets cast, while Miracles happen all the time. Either Miracle needs to be lowered in power or Wish needs to be free when duplicating spell effects.

My main problem with Wish is the infamous Efreeti gate/bind/ally problem. They included the limitation on using SLA's which would cost xp as spells in the Summoning section but left it out of the Calling one.

Polymorph and Polymorph any Object are broken when using just the core rules.

And just continue to get more broken with each book printed. There are no so many different versions of the spell that I actually no longer know how these work. I might be tempted to include Wild Shape here as well.

Epic Spell creation is broken. It's too hard to get simple effects and too easy to get vastly powerful effects.

The main problem I found with it was that everyone just wanted enormous stat boosters which caused even more disparity in the 3e save/DC gap.

Character wealth levels at epic levels are broken. Money is too low to get epic items until you're well past 25th. This is probably more a problem with the x10 multiplier than the wealth levels.

It does sort of feel that they were sitting around one day and just pulled the modifier out of thin air without actually thinking about it at all.

If you consider anything in the SRD as core, there are several broken things in psionics, such as the powers whose DCs increase at a 1:1 ratio for power points spent.

I tend to only treat the original three books as core. Everything else is a splat book and a source of potential headaches.

 

[James McMurray]

And just continue to get more broken with each book printed. There are no so many different versions of the spell that I actually no longer know how these work. I might be tempted to include Wild Shape here as well.

The PHB2 version is balanced. Its usefulness as a combat buff is almost entirely gone, and it becomes a tool to help with out of combat situations instead.

edit: I haven't actually played a spellcaster with PHB2 Polymorph yet, nor dug through the books for a broken combo, so I should probably have said it appears balanced.

 

[jensun]

The PHB2 version is balanced. Its usefulness as a combat buff is almost entirely gone, and it becomes a tool to help with out of combat situations instead.

edit: I haven't actually played a spellcaster with PHB2 Polymorph yet, nor dug through the books for a broken combo, so I should probably have said it appears balanced.

I dont own the PHB2. Could you give me an idea of what it does (without of course the full description).

 

[Tiberius]

"Sure, the company has released this in order to clear up some very specific rules questions, but it doesn't count." LOL!

To be fair, I don't think the "the FAQ is a poor source" argument is the main one used by the anti-INA crowd these days. From what I've seen in the discussion, the argument seems to go:

1. The monk special ability treats their unarmed attack as both a natural and manufactured weapon for all relevant effects.
2. The Improved Natural Attack feat increased the damage die type for natural attacks, and requires that the user have a natural attack as a prerequisite.
3. A prerequisite is not an effect. As such, the standard PHB race monk is ineligible for the feat, lacking the prerequisite natural attack.
4. As PHB trumps FAQ entries not specifically listed as errata, PHB race monks can't take INA by the RAW. Monks from races such as lizardfolk, possessing a natural attack, can still do so.

I'm not trying to start the argument again, so if you'd like to take it to Rules. I'm just trying to clarify the point.

 

[khyron1144]

1) Most of that was converted to skills that can be used untrained. You can still makea dex check to keep your balance, but if it's important to your concept you can put ranks in balance too.



2) Are there situations where you don't think they cover all the bases? I haven't seen any.



3) Hopefully the PH2 version is the last.

1) The trouble with an untrained balance check is either the DC needs to be low (because your mod is +1 - +4, if you've got a good Dexterity) or your die roll needs to be high. There's also no difference between a Dexteity of 16 and 17 under the new system. That's why I prefer the old roll under your ability score system.

2) They cover all the bases, but I don't think that the saving throw for a Finger of Death spell ought to be the same as the save for Ghoul Paralysis.

3) I don't think it will be. The fact that it "needed" that many different versions is proof that something's out of whack though.

 

[DaveyJones]

What WotC errors have caused you the most problems with regards to maintaining game balance and/or player understanding of the rules?

my list would include forgetting from where the game originated. the roots of the game.

in this regard lvls, stats, magic, hps, classes, and alignment are all messed up. because they are building them not on the origin but on a third or fourth or 11th remake of them.

 

[James McMurray]

I'm not trying to start the argument again, so if you'd like to take it to Rules. I'm just trying to clarify the point.

No need. I'll just giggle inwardly at #3 and move on. Thanks for filling me in!

1) The trouble with an untrained balance check is either the DC needs to be low (because your mod is +1 - +4, if you've got a good Dexterity) or your die roll needs to be high. There's also no difference between a Dexteity of 16 and 17 under the new system. That's why I prefer the old roll under your ability score system.

Cool. I like that system in some situations too. Wasn't really trying to proclaim anything as better, just pointing out that they're still here under a different guise.

2) They cover all the bases, but I don't think that the saving throw for a Finger of Death spell ought to be the same as the save for Ghoul Paralysis.

Cool. Far be it from me to try to argue opinion.

3) I don't think it will be. The fact that it "needed" that many different versions is proof that something's out of whack though.

True. But I think they finally found the right solution.

 

[Destil]

Delayed blast fireball.

If a spell's duration is variable, the DM rolls it secretely.

Dosn't actually work, but gets touted all the time.

 

[Lord Zardoz]

I actually like Auto fail a Save on a 1.

Randomness does work against the PC's. But to me, the simple fact that we use dice in this game indicates to me that randomness is a feature, not a problem.

The only compelling arguement against the save failing on a 1 is that the PC's will see more 'Save or Die' situations than the enemies, and sooner or later, they will bite it. As I see it, there are some counter arguements to that.

1) Most such spells are single target spells. The one that I can think of that can multiple targets (Finger of Death), is HD capped. If your throwing that spell at your players where you can wipe multiple targets, you have other problems.

2) If you are using such spells, against a typical party there will be someone who does not have a great save vs that effect anyway, and failing on a 1 is not his problem.

3) The players will have plenty of resources to offset this sort of thing (Spell turning, anti magic field, other specialized Anti Death Spells).

4) When someone does botch their save, and would have succeeded on a 1 if the rules allowed it, the players probably have the resources to bring him back from the dead anyway.

5) If your that worried about drilling a player to be dead with this kind of spell, then why are you equipping your baddies with it? Either you as a DM want a given spell caster to snuff out a PC like a Candle or you do not. If you dont want a dead player, then do not use spells called Power Word Kill.

5a) If you are a player and fear for your characters life, refer to item 3. There is more to making yourself death proof than very high saving throws. Alternatively, if your that worried about these spells, then why not just ask the DM if such spells and effects can be house ruled out? Most DM's are reasonable about removing such things on a "If you dont use them, I wont use them" basis.

And applying only to my campaign and others with similar house rules:
Z ) I rule that a failed save vs this kind of spell drops you to -1 as opposed to being outright dead.

Ultimately, everyone will have their own particular tastes and preferences. I don't run games that specifically require the players to always succeed anyway, and I am pretty forgiving when it comes to allowing players to keep their characters alive in some manner if I can at all justify it. Those that run more story driven games, I think, tend to prefer avoiding having to deal with an unexpectedly corpsified character 2 encounters before their final battle. And if they are worried about that, then why are they using these spells at this time in the first place?.

END COMMUNICATION

 

[James McMurray]

Dosn't actually work, but gets touted all the time.

Delayed Blast Fireball's duration is not random. However, it also doesn't end the instant time stop ends, so people have time to see the glowing beads and decide what to do.