What's you biggest gripe with the D&D rules?

GawainBS · Post by **GawainBS** » Wed Jul 11, 2007 3:27 pm

Aegis wrote:I am just going to point out, for the sake of Devil's Advocate, to Gawain's argument, that the situation presented is the very ideal, and something that, even at best, would only occur with copious amounts of forward thinking, not to mention knowledge of what was going to happen. Not only that, but it definitely strikes me that if there was some might sketchy DMing going on if a wizard/sorceror was given every bit of that ludicrous combination of survival.

The point I am trying to get across is that the situation is rarely ideal, and something can always go wrong. For instance, what if the Psion wins initiative, and goes first with a crippling opening attack.

The simply truth is that any of the 'caster' type of characters are quite broken. My particular opinion is on the Psion being even more stupid (having seen a number of dirty, broken builds).

If you want horribly broken stuff, go ask at the Character Optimisation Boards at Wizards. They'll barely touch Psion. It's easier to break a Wizard, Cleric or Druid. (Sure, it can be done, but those guys can make a commoner invincible.)
As to the ideal situation: the Wizard had a Clone available. If it turns out bad, the clone takes over. Also, the Wizard might have Contingencies, which can be set to trigger on any number of conditions.
But, saying that the wizard won't always win, doesn't make the psion on its own unbalanced.
To further counter the argument about Shardstorm: First of all: it's a second level spell, so compairing it to Magic Missile isn't fair. Secondly: if you augment it to 23d4 (with Overchannel feat, at lvl 20), you're effectivly using something that's on par with a 9th level spell slot, since you're expending as much powerpoints as necessary (even more) for a 9th level power. Thirdly: it's pretty shortranged at 15 feet.
So, what would you like to do: do 23d4 damage that's easily resistable to targets in a 15ft cone, which won't be that many at higher levels due to larger spaces/monsters (generally), or cast a Wail of the Banshee witha quickened Cone of Cold, which does 15d6 damage, of a type that could be altered?

Aegis · Post by **Aegis** » Wed Jul 11, 2007 4:14 pm

How is it not fair to compare Magic missile and Shardstorm, but it is fair to compare Shardstorm and Wail of the Banshee?

Siberys · Post by **Siberys** » Wed Jul 11, 2007 4:53 pm

I was merely comparing core rules to psionic rules that have similarities, Magic Missile and Swarm of Crystals (note: NOT shardstorm, that's something totally different) both have an auto hit feature and both do D4 damage.

Take a look at Complete Divine.

And as for that, I'm not comparing other supplemental books. If we were, I could have brought up Heroes of Battle Feats that improve leadership dramatically with a Normal character, thus effectively balancing it with thrallherd, but I didn't. I only do comparisons to what is legitimately open source material and free to the public, because not everybody can pay for every single optional book there is.

Pellinore · Post by **Pellinore** » Wed Jul 11, 2007 5:58 pm

Thats why I prefer the older editions best. Much simpler and less power-characters. Characters can do more now but they all seem like power gaming to me. I haven't played the new versions but once or twice but I didn't care much for it but even in second edition, wild talent psionics could be absolute terrors if the DM didn't watch carefully...

And to this person: [HTML]Now to go back to the topic: I always disliked the idea of Dragons, they're SO not in the D&D flavour. D&D is meant to be played without dragons, why are there so many dragonrelated things?!

And another thing. Always those stupid dungeons. God I hate dungeons. D&D was never meant to be played in dungeons. Fo'shame!
[/HTML]

Please, oh please, tell me you aren't serious, lol. Why would there be dragons and dungeons in a game called Dungeons and Dragons? Honestly, dragons are too powerful for any mortal characters to take on if they are played by a skilled DM. And nothing is more fun to me than a goold, old-fashioned dungeon crawl.

GawainBS · Post by **GawainBS** » Thu Jul 12, 2007 9:52 am

Siberys wrote:I was merely comparing core rules to psionic rules that have similarities, Magic Missile and Swarm of Crystals (note: NOT shardstorm, that's something totally different) both have an auto hit feature and both do D4 damage.

Swarm of Crystals, yes, I was confused, I meant the one that does xd4 damage in a cone. The moment you augment it up to 20somethingd4 damage, it is the same as a nineth level power, yes.
Even without Complete Divine, the Druid can get some pretty awesome Animal Companions.

Basing your opinion on old edition Psionics doesn't give them the credit they deserve. I only played a little bit in older editions, but they seem to have been very ill-defined, with lots of complicated rules. In many ways, I find 3.5 easier and more logical. But the appearance of powerbuilding comes along with the new customisation options and better-defined rules.

Siberys · Post by **Siberys** » Thu Jul 12, 2007 10:54 am

Lest you're talking to someone else, I'm referring to expanded psionic handbook rules.

3.0 Psionics should never be brought up, that book is just wrong....purely opposite of right.

The druid can get a nice animal companion, yes, but just because an animal companion has a +30 something to two or three attacks and a bunch of hit points doesn't mean it's going to be stronger than everything else.

Animals have low saves (usually) and skills, as well as an extremely limited feat choice. By the time you hit 20th level druid, the animal companion you might have would be near the equivelant of a 10th level fighter at best.

Here's an example of probably the best you could do with a wolf animal companion by level 20 in Druid.

Size/Type: Medium Animal
Hit Dice: 14d8+42 (105 hp)
Initiative: +6
Speed: 50 ft. (10 squares)
Armor Class: 30 (+6 Dex, +14 natural), touch 16, flat-footed 24
Base Attack/Grapple: +10/+15
Attack: Bite +16 melee (1d8+5) (Crit 19/x2)
Full Attack: Bite +16/11 melee (1d8+5) (Crit 19/x2)
Space/Reach: 5 ft./5 ft.
Special Attacks: Trip
Special Qualities: Low-light vision, scent, Link, Share Spells, Evasion (Improved), Devotion, Second Natural Attack.
Saves: Fort +12, Ref +15, Will +5
Abilities: Str 20, Dex 22, Con 16, Int 2, Wis 12, Cha 6
Skills: Hide +5, Listen +4, Move Silently +5, Spot +5, Survival +5*
Feats: TrackB, Weapon Focus (bite), Power Attack, Improved Natural Attack (Bite), Improved Critical (Bite)

Now, a lot of the druid abilities combined with this, yes, it can get overpowering. I would also like to mention that I wasn't ever comparing how broken druids are, that wasn't my original point, but in any case, the animal companion, EVEN WITH druid spells to boost the animal companion stats of this wolf, it's not gonna be a capable fighter. And by choosing one of the alternative stronger animal companions when you reach the appropriate level, you're only hurting yourself by not giving it hit dice and strength/dex boosts.

So yes, the druid is a bit overpowered if you know what your doing, but if you go standard, it's just as balanced as any other class. I can make a fighter overpowered too, or a barbarian, or a paladin even (and that class is god awful).

I'm not saying psionics are the most broken thing ever in DND, I'm saying the book about psionics is broken in general and needs a lot of fixing up. There are plenty of other things that Skip Williams has maimed and destroyed, but again, not my original point to begin with.

GawainBS · Post by **GawainBS** » Thu Jul 12, 2007 11:06 am

Siberys wrote:Lest you're talking to someone else, I'm referring to expanded psionic handbook rules.

3.0 Psionics should never be brought up, that book is just wrong....purely opposite of right.

The druid can get a nice animal companion, yes, but just because an animal companion has a +30 something to two or three attacks and a bunch of hit points doesn't mean it's going to be stronger than everything else.

Animals have low saves (usually) and skills, as well as an extremely limited feat choice. By the time you hit 20th level druid, the animal companion you might have would be near the equivelant of a 10th level fighter at best.

Here's an example of probably the best you could do with a wolf animal companion by level 20 in Druid.

Size/Type: Medium Animal
Hit Dice: 14d8+42 (105 hp)
Initiative: +6
Speed: 50 ft. (10 squares)
Armor Class: 30 (+6 Dex, +14 natural), touch 16, flat-footed 24
Base Attack/Grapple: +10/+15
Attack: Bite +16 melee (1d8+5) (Crit 19/x2)
Full Attack: Bite +16/11 melee (1d8+5) (Crit 19/x2)
Space/Reach: 5 ft./5 ft.
Special Attacks: Trip
Special Qualities: Low-light vision, scent, Link, Share Spells, Evasion (Improved), Devotion, Second Natural Attack.
Saves: Fort +12, Ref +15, Will +5
Abilities: Str 20, Dex 22, Con 16, Int 2, Wis 12, Cha 6
Skills: Hide +5, Listen +4, Move Silently +5, Spot +5, Survival +5*
Feats: TrackB, Weapon Focus (bite), Power Attack, Improved Natural Attack (Bite), Improved Critical (Bite)

Now, a lot of the druid abilities combined with this, yes, it can get overpowering. I would also like to mention that I wasn't ever comparing how broken druids are, that wasn't my original point, but in any case, the animal companion, EVEN WITH druid spells to boost the animal companion stats of this wolf, it's not gonna be a capable fighter. And by choosing one of the alternative stronger animal companions when you reach the appropriate level, you're only hurting yourself by not giving it hit dice and strength/dex boosts.

So yes, the druid is a bit overpowered if you know what your doing, but if you go standard, it's just as balanced as any other class. I can make a fighter overpowered too, or a barbarian, or a paladin even (and that class is god awful).

I'm not saying psionics are the most broken thing ever in DND, I'm saying the book about psionics is broken in general and needs a lot of fixing up. There are plenty of other things that Skip Williams has maimed and destroyed, but again, not my original point to begin with.

Did you even take the effort to read through the thread on Wizards why Psionics aren't broken?
A Dire Tiger for a Druid is plain better than that wolf and a decent addition to any party. If you agree a Druid can be broken,in core, than why complain about Psionics? Then it boils down to the fact that everything in Core needs polishing up.
I agree Psionics open up nice possibilities and that it's probably harder to botch a blaster-type psion than a blaster-type wizard.
You're clearly a Psionics-phobe.

I'm not trying to make you like them, since it's a flavour thing, but saying things which aren't founded on anything, or easily proven wrong is an entire other thing. I'm dropping from now on and hope this thread gets back on track.

Siberys · Post by **Siberys** » Thu Jul 12, 2007 11:29 am

Did you even take the effort to read through the thread on Wizards why Psionics aren't broken?

Yes, I did, I even said so in one of my earlier posts,

These theories that say psionics arent broken, those theories are based upon non-broken psionic characters, and how to make them that way. But it really is easy to make a broken psionic character, and not with just powers alone.

------------------------

You're clearly a Psionics-phobe. I'm not trying to make you like them, since it's a flavour thing, but saying things which aren't founded on anything, or easily proven wrong is an entire other thing. I'm dropping from now on and hope this thread gets back on track.

Umm, first off, I've argued things which WERE founded on evidence. I presented an entire argument in comparison to core rules versus psionics, did you not read that?

Secondly, throwing a bunch of links at me and expecting me to read them as if it were YOUR side I refuse to do. I already told you I've read those theories before, and they can be disproved, which I did and you clearly refuse to see this and resort to labeling me as a "psionics-phobe." That doesn't make sense for one thing, phobia's are fear of psionics, I hate the rules, I don't fear them. They're rules to a game, how can you mentally fear them anyways?

So, if you're going to refuse to read my arguments and then tell me I'm making stuff up based upon nothing, I believe I'm going to stop listening. That's like refusing to read the instructions on how to set up a camping tent and then complaining that it's too hard to set it up, because if you don't take the initiative to read and comprehend, you won't have a chance in hell of understanding what's going on.

Oh, and this is on topic by the way, you don't need to keep saying "Lets get back on topic." I have a gripe with psionics and I've presented why, that is on topic to the point of this thread.

interpretivecha · Post by **interpretivecha** » Thu Jul 12, 2007 2:08 pm

23 d4 at 20th level is piddly squat.

Psionics does not suffer from metamagic abuse because of the requirement to expend your psionic focus.

Lets say 12 d4 at 10th level, where magic missile maxes out. Magic Missile does 5d4+5 at the same level. To make it take an equivalent spell slot, we'll throw on twin spell (+4 lvl, complete arcane) and viola, it does 10d4 +10 spell damage, all being force so no DR, affects incorporeal beings etc.

This is not counting the incredibly broken arcane thesis in PHB II, or the fact that scorching ray is a much more effective blasting spell ( an empowered scorching ray, a core only 4th level spell slot, does 12d6 at this level with two touch attacks, and 18d6 next level. In addition, it can be recovered with a second level pearl of power costing 4 thousand gold pieces, while to pay the 13 power points that a psion spent to cause 13d6+13 damage (at 11th level) (if he uses energy ray costs 49,000 gp (cognizance crystal). All of this is core only.

Meanwhile, Wizards have slightly better access to better save or dies. Hold Monster, the 5th level power means death to any core creature not immune to save or dies. A properly outfitted wizard, can get a DC of 15 (base) +9 (int 18+2lvl+6 headband(crafted himself)+2 gray elf)+1 Spell Focus+1 Greater Spell Focus = a DC of 26 compared to the max will save of 14 for core CR 10 creatures (and an average will save of 9). Followed by a Coup de gras the next round, and this effectively kills even the strongest willed creatures half the time. Psions have to expend their psychic focus to gain the bonus, so it requires a larger feat expenditure to spam it.

Where wizards truly pull ahead is battlefield control spells. Evards Black Tentacles, when combined with solid fog, is a truly deadly combination. Back at tenth level, creatures must spend a full round action to move 5 ft, providing they succeeded on the grapple check against a +18 modifier. Deal with stragglers as they emerge, and watch them take damage from the tentacles. Even at lower levels, web plus stinking cloud provides complete imovability.

I play an optimized psion in a current campaign, while my friend plays an optimized wizard. He is far more powerful than I am.

I'm less familiar with Clerics and Druids, but I understand they're worse.

And no, you can't optimize a fighter, barbarian, or paladin to near the levels of any of these classes. People have tried, and failed. People have tried making noncaster characters from any allowable source, and never been given a better than even chance against an unprepared caster.

GawainBS · Post by **GawainBS** » Thu Jul 12, 2007 2:12 pm

Oh, finally, reason! Oh, wait, now I'm being subjective.

Pandaroon · Post by **Pandaroon** » Thu Jul 12, 2007 2:16 pm

Indeed subjective, FickleFickle for prefering reason above blabber.

Siberys · Post by **Siberys** » Thu Jul 12, 2007 2:46 pm

@interpretivecha

Well said. I stand by my reason that psionics are inherently broken, but I don't deny that other classes are or can be broken as well, which was my entire point from the beginning. However, I would like to address one thing-

scorching ray, a core only 4th level spell slot, does 12d6 at this level with two touch attacks, and 18d6 next level.

This is not true and it's not how empower spell works. There isn't much of a difference, but there is some in saying-

4D6 empowered is 6D6
versus
4D6 empowered is 4D6 x 1.5.

It's the probability factor, adding more dice is a substantial increase for potential damage, where as the way empower spell actually works has a set rate.

Think of it like this. You have something that does 4D6 damage and you roll all ones, that's 4 damage, 6 empowered, a set rate. But your way of thinking can bring in more damage than anticipated, making the usage slightly more powerful.

However, that aside, again your points were well made and I fully agree. I still stick by my statement that it's easy to make a psion, wilder, or psychic warrior broken, and this is my opinion from personal gameplay experience.

interpretivecha · Post by **interpretivecha** » Thu Jul 12, 2007 11:05 pm

I apologize for the slight oversight, our DM doesn't care which way we do it, so since the math is easier and the results closer to average, we roll 2 extra dice. (And the results are closer to average: take a simplified example of 2d6 compared to d6x2. The first has a bell curve distribution, the second has a uniform distribution. Both average 7 damage, but the second has more variance)

Psionics are more flexible, but all this in practice means is that a less experienced player gets to use all of his resources on his powers that are effective, while a core caster might waste slots on occasional use spells.
An experienced wizard doesn't suffer these problems and has more options available to him. (It's true that metamagic is required to make an effective blasting wizard, while an expenditure of feats is not required for psions: however, low level wizards are invariably more effective with spells like glitterdust that will be more effective than 4d6 damage, and require less sustained effort, conserving resources)

Psywarriors don't stand up in potential to the true casters, but they achieved the remarkable and praiseworthy feat of creating a fighter archetype that almost came close, a feat unmatched until Tome of Battle.

I'm certain that I can't convince you in the face of your personal experience, but in theory and in many people's (including my own) practice, psions are a much more balanced class than wizards.

muraganda · Post by **muraganda** » Fri Jul 13, 2007 1:24 pm

Siberys wrote:It's not an assumption, but prior knowledge. I have about 7 characters that differ from what WoTC board members say about psionics being balanced.

People believe psionics are broken, they assume this because most psions do a lot of damage. So do wizards, but my theory isn't based on Damage or DC's for powers.

It's the book as a whole, skills and feats, classes and abilities, even some of the magic items are much more powerful than that of a standard magic item. The psionics book, not only was meant for a higher powered campaign, but the creators even SAID it was meant for this. These theories that say psionics arent broken, those theories are based upon non-broken psionic characters, and how to make them that way. But it really is easy to make a broken psionic character, and not with just powers alone.

Give me an example of a broken psionic character.

muraganda · Post by **muraganda** » Fri Jul 13, 2007 1:33 pm

Siberys wrote:@interpretivecha

Well said. I stand by my reason that psionics are inherently broken, but I don't deny that other classes are or can be broken as well, which was my entire point from the beginning. However, I would like to address one thing-

This is not true and it's not how empower spell works. There isn't much of a difference, but there is some in saying-

4D6 empowered is 6D6
versus
4D6 empowered is 4D6 x 1.5.

It's the probability factor, adding more dice is a substantial increase for potential damage, where as the way empower spell actually works has a set rate.

Think of it like this. You have something that does 4D6 damage and you roll all ones, that's 4 damage, 6 empowered, a set rate. But your way of thinking can bring in more damage than anticipated, making the usage slightly more powerful.

However, that aside, again your points were well made and I fully agree. I still stick by my statement that it's easy to make a psion, wilder, or psychic warrior broken, and this is my opinion from personal gameplay experience.

Then you have played with idiots and most likely they dont follow the #1 of psionic characters:

The single most important rule in the Expanded Psionics Handbook is that you cannot spend more power points on a power than you have manifester levels in the class the power belongs to.

Basing your arguements on encounters with 1 or 2 players who i bet did not follow the rule. And if they did then either dont know how to optimize a character or your dm puts too many weak monsters. Either way i dare you to go [url="http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=331253"]HERE[/url] and read the entire article. And if by then you still say psionics is broken then you should lock yourself in basement and never come out again.

Siberys · Post by **Siberys** » Fri Jul 13, 2007 3:09 pm

The single most important rule in the Expanded Psionics Handbook is that you cannot spend more power points on a power than you have manifester levels in the class the power belongs to.

Not true, as wilder and a few feats can bypass this, as I've said already.

Then you have played with idiots

Considering I said this was from MY experience from MY characters, I assume you are calling me the idiot.

And if by then you still say psionics is broken then you should lock yourself in basement and never come out again.

And you can consider yourself warned. Debating with me about whether psionics are broken or not is fine, but this is borderline flaming and as with many customs here, this is against the rules. Please find a nicer way to word your posts.

Fiberfar · Post by **Fiberfar** » Fri Jul 13, 2007 8:59 pm

I'm not going to join this discussion, but from personal experience, I find psionics to be boring.

muraganda · Post by **muraganda** » Sat Jul 14, 2007 2:09 am

Siberys wrote:Not true, as wilder and a few feats can bypass this, as I've said already.

Indeed but at what cost? that "augmentation" does not come just by taking the feat itself it has its toll. Please visit the link i gave you and you shall see.

Siberys · Post by **Siberys** » Sat Jul 14, 2007 2:23 am

muraganda wrote:Indeed but at what cost? that "augmentation" does not come just by taking the feat itself it has its toll. Please visit the link i gave you and you shall see.

I've already stated not once, not twice, but now this is the THIRD time I've said I HAVE READ EVERY THEORY BASED ON WHY PSIONICS AREN'T BROKEN.

Why is this so hard to understand? Why is it we always come back to these links when I've stated that I've read them and disagree with them. Is that not enough for you? Can you not just leave it at that for gods sake. Is it really that hard to let me have my own opinion?

GawainBS · Post by **GawainBS** » Sat Jul 14, 2007 4:32 am

Siberys wrote:I've already stated not once, not twice, but now this is the THIRD time I've said I HAVE READ EVERY THEORY BASED ON WHY PSIONICS AREN'T BROKEN.

Why is this so hard to understand? Why is it we always come back to these links when I've stated that I've read them and disagree with them. Is that not enough for you? Can you not just leave it at that for gods sake. Is it really that hard to let me have my own opinion?

But your opinion in this case has been proven wrong. It's like saying you don't believe in Newton's Theory while there's an apple falling on your head. (Or raindrops for that matter. *Queues music*)
The thread about non-broken psionics proves exactly why the facts that you describe aren't broken at all.
This doesn't mean you have to like them. This doesn't mean they can be broken. They can. So can a core Wizard or Cleric or... to a much larger degree.

To Fiberfar: I can understand you find them boring. I just like the feel of them. To each his own.