What is the power level at which D&D 3.5e shines the most?

[Gavinfoxx]

Aosaw: Would you like me to run the math on a PHB/DMG/SRD melee focused cleric vs fighter at level 6? How about core+srd+completes? Or all wotc books available at level 6? I'd do it at maximum optimization level, for equivalencies. I can also go into some of the 'advanced' animals available by various rulebooks, if you would like?

[Zhefonyll]

Originally Posted by Gavinfoxx

JKTrickster: (Comparing to fighter now) My main issues is that, between adventures, this guy you fight with takes one fourth of all the treasure you accumulated and spent it on a freaking +3 Sword and a bunch of potions of Cure Moderate Wounds. Not a +1 Holy Sword. A +3 Sword, because he can't cast Greater Magic Weapon on his weapon, and potions. Not wands, potions, because he can't cast curative spells from a wand.

If this is your gripe, then you're not powergaming well. You're not helping your allies make good choices with their shopping, and your party is so dysfunctional that the Fighter won't rely upon the casters for healing and Greater Magic Weapon. Shouldn't you be using people better than that? They're a resource as much as your character-wealth.

That fighter could have a handful of healing belts so that he can actually steal the Cleric's main role instead of wasting his wealth on consumables (each belt is essentially 3 Cure Moderate Wounds a day, and there's no time-requirement for a swapped belt to sync to its wearer). There's also some broken-cheap summon-trinkets, usable once per day, if the fighter wants to step on the wizard's toes. If he wants to spam up Use Magic Device, he can even get Eternal Wands to let him cast a few spells of his choice each day.

If your issue is with your fighter inappropriately spending his character-wealth, help him. He can do a lot if he's smart about it. Magic Item Compendium covers most of it. He could pick up 3x Healing Belt for a staggering 2,250 gold, swapping them between encounters, and 3x Amber Amulet of Vermin (Huge Scorpion) for a painful 2,100 gold. He now has a summon roughly on par with a 6th-level spell (it's not Fiendish, so we're a step down from Summon Monster 7) and 3 Cure Moderate wounds for every combat encounter of every day (because, honestly, you shouldn't expect more than 3 combat encounters in a given day of D&D), and he's spent 4,350 gold. Sure, you could cast those spells yourself, but there's utility of action to having somebody else do it.

Despite all the CharOp chatter about tiers, it's possible to have a fighter who contributes nicely to a group with a wizard or cleric. If you want to play a beefy Cleric, it's in your interest to help the player of the Fighter see how he could be awesome enough to wander around with you.

Nobody wants to see the CharOp numbers on why a melee-Cleric is better than a Fighter. In isolation like that, nobody ever uses a targetted dispel on your melee Cleric, and it's stupid of the enemy not to. If your DM gives your enemies one functional brain in a dungeon, the Fighter can outshine the Cleric.

My main point is this: what happens when you have Aquaman in the same story with the Green Lantern and Superman? And I'm not talking about the high tech, king who leads an army Aquaman. I'm talking about this annoying guy who can talk to fishes.

Lex Luthor and Sinestro join up against their enemies, and you see kryptonite and the color yellow showing up (did you know yellow is Green Lantern's weakness?) in a prolonged confrontation (did you know Green Lantern's power-ring requires charging?) in the arctic winter where there will be no sunlight for weeks (did you know Superman has to actually draw power from the sun like a freaking plant to be awesome at all?).

Sure, Superman and Green Lantern could try to go it alone, but they'd be idiots to pass up having Aquaman around to talk to every seal, sea-lion, killer-whale, shark, and otherwise in the area - thus giving them a strategic edge because they now have a massive network of spies to help them figure out what's going on and deal with it on their own terms (so they can actually afford to use their superpowers before the situation leaves them helpless Commoners).

Aquaman sucks. But if the storyteller wants Aquaman to help Superman and Green Lantern out, it happens and it even makes sense.


This is my main point. You're a character. The DM is the narrator. You don't know exactly what the story will be, exactly what will happen, and therefore if your character really is more powerful than somebody else's.

All the CharOp stuff assumes a lack of environmental influence and adaptive response, which is unrealistic and unreasonable. Do you think Pun-pun wandering the world doesn't lead to people specifically devising ways to kill that psychopathic godling?

It stops seeming like a living world the moment your character breaks the game. The idea that your character has reached semi-godhood, is the first to do it, wasn't killed by somebody to prevent this before it reached that point, and isn't being killed now to put an end to the madness is absurd.

The build you want to play should have showed up as an NPC with a few more levels than you have while you were a couple levels lower and killed you - if it's possible to reach that sort of power without one of the dark gods arranging for a Balor to eat you (again, before you reach the level where your character is a demigod in disguise).

Unless, of course, you're far from unique, and just about everybody has demigod-level powers, in which case it's not an issue...


I'm not "shifting the goal post and intentionally taking away class features" by saying that sometimes your caster doesn't have spells. I don't need to make any houserules to do any of the things I suggested are possible to make your caster not always have magic, and it's a sad double-standard of CharOp boards that Rogues are weak because Sneak Attack can be taken away, but casters aren't considered weak when there's actually many ways to take away spells. If your DM never takes away your caster's magic, they're being too nice. That's the big drawback to your class, and it should happen some of the time in your game.


Finally, a small note: Character Optimization is, by definition of the words, making your character the very best he can be, not just making him effectively. CharOp boards tend to follow this mindset, going right past playably-good and into the realm of absurdly-broken in their pursuit of building a 'perfect' < insert character concept >.

[SpatulaOdoom]

Originally Posted by Chronicler

JKTrickster's right. It has been a while since I have broken out the red text in a debate. I see this conversation getting closer and closer to the line with every post - let's keep it cool, alright?

No thanks Gavin.

I'll say it again the disparity in power between classes only becomes extraordinarily evident as levels go up. Un-experienced people shouldn't be playing at higher levels regardless of whether or not the classes are balanced due to the rising complexity. Once the players/DM are comfortable enough to play at higher levels where that sort of thing becomes an issue they should be intelligent enough to understand how it works and decide at what power level the characters should be and build characters appropriately. "Not optimizing" is actually an option, as is optimizing within the power range selected by the group.

From a roleplaying standpoint there are a million ways to make a general character mechanically. Whether you're playing a Fighter or a Warblade or a Generalist Wizard or a Wizard/Incantrix it's more or less the same thing.

From a mechanical standpoint the game allows you to select from a variety of power levels that encourage different styles of gameplay.

If you guys are arguing over whether or not people who don't fully grasp the mechanics might make mistakes, then my response is "well yea". Personally I like the level of complexity that allows you to make highly customized characters to fit your exact idea and style of play.

You guys are getting heated over what is, in my opinion, a non-issue, and saying the same thing over and over with slightly different phrasing probably isn't going to resolve the argument. Maybe it's time to step back for a bit.


EDIT: This, Oh god This.

Originally Posted by Zhefonyll

Aquaman sucks. But if the storyteller wants Aquaman to help Superman and Green Lantern out, it happens and it even makes sense.

This is my main point. You're a character. The DM is the narrator. You don't know exactly what the story will be, exactly what will happen, and therefore if your character really is more powerful than somebody else's.

All the CharOp stuff assumes a lack of environmental influence and adaptive response, which is unrealistic and unreasonable. Do you think Pun-pun wandering the world doesn't lead to people specifically devising ways to kill that psychopathic godling?

It stops seeming like a living world the moment your character breaks the game. The idea that your character has reached semi-godhood, is the first to do it, wasn't killed by somebody to prevent this before it reached that point, and isn't being killed now to put an end to the madness is absurd.

The build you want to play should have showed up as an NPC with a few more levels than you have while you were a couple levels lower and killed you - if it's possible to reach that sort of power without one of the dark gods arranging for a Balor to eat you (again, before you reach the level where your character is a demigod in disguise).

Unless, of course, you're far from unique, and just about everybody has demigod-level powers, in which case it's not an issue...

The local progression of players being dicks is "Rocks Fall Everyone Dies" because there's always someone stronger.

[loki_ragnarock]

Those spells are designed to replace the rogue if the rogue is not there - to allow for a different kind of party dynamic. If you use them when you don't need to, not only is it inefficient, but it's mean. You didn't have to prepare Find Traps that day, but you did, and now the rogue is out of a job.

A caster can find traps exactly as often as he has prepared the spell. How many traps is he prepared for? 2? 3? 5? All of his second and third level spell slots worth to apply extend spell? Is he sure that's enough? He'd best hope it is, because he's out of luck if he's prepared insufficiently.

The rogue can do this all day long. There is no limit to the number of traps he can find. He is the ultimate insurance against traps, because he can do it forever. On every level of the dungeon, in every secret room, in every hallway at any given time, he can look for and (likely) remove traps.

"But what about Persistent Spell?" Well, yes, you could expend an 8th level spell slot to become adequate at finding CR 4-5 traps for a full day... but that's one heck of a high level spell slot to lose to be merely inadequate at what a specialized rogue would do expertly, which makes it a poor option for the high level caster that wants to avoid having the carefully balanced glass of acid resting precariously on the edge of a door melt his face after failing to spot it. At low levels, the more tightly constrained spell slots means that the character has less options for situations that don't deal directly with traps... which enhances the odds of the caster dying in non-trap based scenarios in exchange for the opportunity to be temporarily bad at what someone specialized can cover permanently.

"Why are we paying the rogue? I can do what he does." = "Why am I paying for car insurance? I'm a good driver."

Which is to say, any setting where traps are an issue is a setting where you probably want to make sure the rogue gets paid. The one's that don't... well, they just might have their faces melt off fairly early in their career. Meanwhile, the caster that uses Scribe Scroll to create a copy of the spell that the rogue can UMD into existence is probably going to have a face; the ability to give someone genuinely specialized a large bonus to their specialty is a substantial edge and might be the best way to ensure his own personal survival... even when he doesn't really care about his party members beyond their usefulness.



But that level of agency is, as I've tried to intimate previous, dependent on the nature of the game the DM runs. If there are no traps, then the rogues ability to do it all day, consistently, and ably is kind of trite.
... unless you believe in paying for your car insurance.

[Kuma]

holy discussion batman! <_<;. I disappear for the weekend and nearly 40 posts have sprung up <<;.

Going to toss back a summary of the overall feel of the last two-ish pages.

 

Perfectly optimized classes are broken by definition ... A DM will find ways to challenge his PC's, that's his job. ... the game isnt just numbers, there are People you're playing with.

Tiers are designed to display versatility/agency between perfectly optimized Classes. .... strictly from the player side 3.5 is horribly imbalanced. The imbalance is strict and a higher tier will -always- outshine a lower tier.

Role playing involves a group, don't be ruining another person's fun by stealing their spotlight. ... Don't play so that the rest of your party wants to kill you.

-----
The discussion has dangerously turned away from the initial question: "What Tier does 3.5 shine at?"

My final answer: The Tier the DM can best manage them at.
You run into all sorts of different people playing DnD: some exceedingly skilled at managing superpowered players as they secretly rule the world with their powers, some who prefer to have their low-magic group of adventurers struggle for each breath against a vicious horde that plans for their demise.

3.5's best aspect is it's breadth, you can do an incredible amount of games, settings, worlds, adventures, characters with it. It's inevitable that some creations are going to be horribly out of balance with others. But it all comes down to the individual we ask to manage it all, the DM. If the DM can handle it awesome. If the DM asks you to un-tweak your twink, you'd best listen or find your cream filled pastry of a character a Dragon's snack.

[Gavinfoxx]

Okay. I suppose I should try and step away from the class vs class arguments.

In the initial post, I suggested that people who disagreed with these concepts:
That D&D 3.5e is imbalanced/unbalanced.
That the imbalance is meaningful and a relevant topic, and it impacts how the game is played.

To not read the thread, because unless we were starting from those base assumptions, we couldn't have a meaningful discussion on where the game shines, and the responsibilities of DMs before starting a game, and such... and it would devolve into a class vs class argument. Which it has...

So I guess let's try to get to the main topics:

1.) What level of agency, power, and versatility does the game function best at?
2.) When can characters outshine other characters and it be okay?
3.) What should DMs do to prevent issues from starting in the first place?
4.) What can we do to help people on this website not have issues in the first place? To improve education on this site?
5.) What are the storytelling implications of proactive encouragement of particular power levels? Reactive shoehorning to particular power levels? Discrepency between power levels staying as is? High power levels of characters? Low power levels of characters?
6.) What are the storytelling implications of removing the concept of protected 'roles' for characters as their main way of 'being a team player'? Keeping the concept intact?
7.) What are the potential pitfalls of escalation between DM's and players, and how can that be best prevented?

[JKTrickster]

I am...confused by the way this thread is going towards.

There seems to be an animosity...almost "hatred" for the players who play certain characters that outshine fellow players.

Now obviously we should be careful not to do that. You guys are right when you say that the DM and the other players should compensate for this.

But saying that "we can solve it" doesn't waive the problem away - it acknowledges the problem actually exists first.

And that's how it relates back to the original question. At what Tiers does DnD shine at? After all what level of power we play at determines how we solve any potential issues.

I think most DnD games need at least Tier 4 (after all most NPC classes are Tier 5 and most people try to be stronger than the standard NPC).

Most DnD games should try to stay within 1-2 Tiers of each other. For example, if you have a Wizard and a Fighter, you can try playing the Wizard as a Tier 3 or Tier 4 even by choosing the right spells. Or "up" the Fighter to a Tier 3 by becoming a Warblade.

I think the "best" Tier is Tier 3. Most Tier 3 classes are fun, wacky, and interesting to play. None of them are one-trick ponies meaning its fun to play them all the way from 1 to 20. They're all flavorful and can deal with a variety of problems.

What I like the most about Tier 3 is that you never "exchange the spotlight" like I see in Tier 4. In Tier 4 most of the classes are extremely narrowed focus. This means that the spotlight is only on one character at a time as that character does the one thing they do best. Its much more interesting to see a team tackle a problem, utilizing their strengths into a cohesive whole.

I think the problem of balance is a touchy issue. While DMs can definitely solve it, and players can try not to start it, it can also happen quite accidentally. For example, its hard to make a Druid bad. Picking an Animal Companion that can fight, choosing buffs, and picking a Wildshape that can fight already means you're more Fighter-y than the Fighter. Or when the Wizard chooses to blast over and over again - doesn't this step on the toes of the barbarian who is meant to do a lot of damage?

A lot of these issues are hard to solve and the Tier System is meant to highlight some possible problems. I think we should focus on the original question, instead of the potential balance issues cause that will only derail the thread.

[Cancer]

1) Tier 3 is a solid tier that enables players to get what they want out of their character while still maintaining party usefulness and balance against encounters.

2) Characters can and should outshine other characters, just not render them into obsolescence.

3) The DM should construct encounters (Note "encounters" range from social situations, to traps, to combat, to etc. etc. etc) that are tailored to fit what each player wants in the game.

4) Construct a stickied compendium of guides. Also create a summation PDF on various build options.

5) Any tampering with the power of your players leaves a sour taste in the mouth for everyone involved. It's best to avoid it, but the DM must be willing to break out the "no" hammer when necessary.

6) If anything, removing the idea of "roles" enhances the feel of the game. This way characters do not feel forced into a particular archetype enhancing their over all experience.,

7) The breakdown of the game, hurt feelings, players leaving the game. It gets fairly nasty if things decay. The DM prevents escalation by creating encounters that allow the various players within the game to shine in the way the player wants to, whether it be mechanically or though story development.

In the end, the DM must do what is fun. Sometimes I find it entertaining to run around at level 16 chucking energy beams and cutting down armies of foes, but in direct contrast I also enjoy low leveled games centered on the struggle of under-powered PCs.

For an interesting read I recommend reading the first few chapters of DMG 1 and DMG 2.

[Zhefonyll]

Originally Posted by Gavinfoxx

1.) What level of agency, power, and versatility does the game function best at?

Avoiding the word 'Tier' doesn't change that this is a flawed question.
For a party to function well, and to survive the range of situations a DM might put them in, they need a good mix of abilities. Sometimes those abilities come from specialists instead of generalists, and this difference in versatility isn't assuredly going to ruin the game. What will is if the DM and the player of the more-versatile character handle it poorly.

2.) When can characters outshine other characters and it be okay?

When it's not always the case. As long as the fighter outshines the wizard once in a while, reminding that mage of why you keep a herculean brute around, things are fine. When the mage really believes that the fighter serves no purpose, that's where there's a problem.

3.) What should DMs do to prevent issues from starting in the first place?

The easy answer is not to let the powergamers/optimizers play in a game where you're not only taking powergamers/optimizers. You don't really want that and, frankly, neither do I. However, that's actually what should be done. If you apply for a game with Pun-pun, you shouldn't be allowed in. It's your responsibility as an optimizer to not get carried away and build something too powerful to reasonably see play, and the DM's responsibility to say "No, that's crazy-broken and not going to be in my game."

4.) What can we do to help people on this website not have issues in the first place? To improve education on this site?

I'm going to compare D&D to a sport here for a moment.

Optimizers are competitive players. They're looking to build the best and a certain element of their fun is winning.

Non-optimizers are casual players. They like the game, enjoy playing it, and don't care if they didn't get a specific intricacy of the rule right as long as everybody's still having fun. They're also not interested in investing hours of their life taking their game to a competitive level.

What you're asking is essentially how one forces the casual player to 'take it seriously' - which is contrary to encouraging people to play the game. You don't. The competitive players need to lighten up or not try to play with the casual players.

How that's done is simple: If you're an optimizer, don't do it in games. Challenge yourself to build a character that's still fun but doesn't greatly outshine the other applicants to the game. Pun-pun is a thought-exercise, not a PC.

5.) What are the storytelling implications of proactive encouragement of particular power levels? Reactive shoehorning to particular power levels? Discrepency between power levels staying as is? High power levels of characters? Low power levels of characters?
6.) What are the storytelling implications of removing the concept of protected 'roles' for characters as their main way of 'being a team player'? Keeping the concept intact?

I'm not even going to start on this. The implications of these things range from game-collapse because they're handled poorly to nothing at all because they're handled smoothly and the players don't even realize that the DM is manipulating the game-balance to make for a better story.

7.) What are the potential pitfalls of escalation between DM's and players, and how can that be best prevented?

Since the player only gets to level when the DM says so, the only real pitfalls to watch out for here are:
1) Antagonizing the player in a way that gets them to angrily leave the game. That's disruptive and fosters negative sentiments.
2) Antagonizing the DM in a way that gets them to angrily kill your character and boot you from the game. Same drawbacks.

This is best avoided by effort on the players' parts. The DM's role is to provide you with challenges, and the crazier you make it for the DM to provide such challenges, the more likely things will not be satisfactory when he does. Look at what everybody else is building, and build down to that level.

Originally Posted by JKTrickster

I am...confused by the way this thread is going towards.

There seems to be an animosity...almost "hatred" for the players who play certain characters that outshine fellow players.

Now obviously we should be careful not to do that. You guys are right when you say that the DM and the other players should compensate for this.

But saying that "we can solve it" doesn't waive the problem away - it acknowledges the problem actually exists first.

And that's how it relates back to the original question. At what Tiers does DnD shine at? After all what level of power we play at determines how we solve any potential issues.

I'm an optimizer.

I happily sit and explain to my tabletop players how to build a character with Arcane Thesis who can kill an entire party of characters at his level in one round's actions, and then we discuss how much that well can be tapped before it outshines the other party-members and won't be allowed in my game. Somebody tells me a Bard can't be a welcome member of the party, and I build a Bard that you'd be crazy not to welcome into your group for them to see. And I read up on things like the Find the City Bomb, just to see if I can poke holes in, improve upon, or simply adapt to a reasonable level, the concept.

But when I go to game, I don't build the best character I can. I build a fun one. And I don't even play what I built to the best of its abilities - I RP instead of always making the best choice. Because I'm willing to just play the game instead of focusing on 'winning' D&D, I don't have any trouble with my mage being in the same group as a Fighter. Blaming the DM for your unwillingness/inability to stop optimizing long enough to enjoy the game won't change things.

[Gavinfoxx]

@Zhefonyll: So, let me see if I have this correct. You would posit that the ONLY variable which matters is if the player is an optimizer? Nothing else matters whatsoever, as 'optimizers' are always out to win or do something that doesn't work in most games? Classes and storytelling style has nothing to do it, and optimizers, in your definition, tend to always play the game like a sport, to win? Also, you don't believe that optimizers or min/maxer's can ever really target a 'reasonable goal' of appropriate power, and still be practicing their craft?

[Cidolfas]

Gavin: I think you are narrowing down what Zhef is telling you too far. He is generalizing the difference between casual players and optimizers. Just because I am a casual player doesn't mean I can't play with Zhefonyll in a game, but it does mean that he might have to tone down his optimization to allow us all to have fun or I might have to optimize more than usual. That is the responsibility of the players involved. Just because rules are out there which allow something to happen doesn't mean that the DM has to use them because they are the best option.

But as for your original post, the game works best at any level which the players and DM enjoy it. If someone has fun playing a dumb NPC class who thinks he is helping out but really isn't, and no one else has a problem with it, the game works just find at that level. I think the rest of your questions are largely unanswerable as they vary greatly depending on what the DM and players are trying to get from the game. From my experience most of the players on this site fall on the casual side of gaming and feel that a good story takes precedence over mechanics. In order to tell a good story, the players talk over their options once selected so as to allow everyone to have a good time.

And I think your thought of "professional adventurers" is flawed. There are numerous reasons to have a character need someone else to be around because of the story (i.e. they are friends, the character is needed for some reason) and thus everyone wants that indivudual to get the best equipment to succeed. There are numerous legitimate storytelling answers to help lower powered characters equal those more powerful or vice-versa.

[CE2JRH]

@Gavin: Yes, you can play soccer with casual players, but if you spend the entire game dancing around them and then suggest that the problem is with either A) The referee not restricting you or B) The team for not being better, the casual players aren't going to invite you back.

Also, to back up Cid's point; in the Lord of the Rings, for example, we laugh at Gandolf for not flying the ring there himself on a giant eagle and then walking away, but the story actually explains that:
1) Gandolf can't resist the ring --- only halflings can
2) Halflings lack magic to control the eagle (and Gandolf + Halfling is too heavy)
3) Gandolf is watched and obsessed with by other powers
4) Halflings are sneaky, irrelevant, and easy to notice

Good example of cannon story with noticeably weaker providing story benefit.

[Aosaw]

Also, Gandolf was too busy helping Santa and the other reindeer navigate through the fog so he could deliver presents.

(I believe the correct spelling is "GandAlf" - although now I'm reminded of a certain hilarious alien...)

[JKTrickster]

Well actually I think stories are a bad example. I mean I understand your point, but I think you raise a bad example.

Stories (and literature in general) have ONE controlling player: the writer. The writer has total control over the situation. They know exactly what will happen. The only difference is that good writers make you care about how it happens, even when they could obviously just flip to the back and read how it ends.

But games like DnD don't function like that. And I don't think they should.

I personally do not like the idea of a DM who purposely constructs challenges to favor certain players. Or at least not all the time.

If every challenge was pre-determined, I wouldn't really want to play. I would feel that my success (and failure) is only because of the DM's favor. Like any of the players could be replaced by a robot and everything would be the same. And...I personally don't like that.

Now obviously the DM has a responsibility to maintain balance and cohesion in the game. And I believe that is a valuable function.

But saying the DM can beam the spotlight down on people....just to make them feel special? Or needed? That's not my cup of tea.

I would rather have the "spotlight" because we're a cool team of cool adventurers. Not because there is a room full of traps and I'm the rogue. Does that make sense?

[CE2JRH]

Yeah, you know what, I've never really thought about it that way. Good points. I guess what I was trying to illustrate is different power levels can work together through DM Fiat; though if you don't want that sort of game, then that's pretty reasonable, and I agree that written stories are fundamentally different.