The Pursuit of Equality and Balance in Game Design

[Kaelik]

It would be nice if there was a Lesser Disjunction that simply did the Auto-Dispel and not the "make a million saves for magic items".

Although I suppose he can just have some random way of getting +$TEXAS to CL/Dispel checks and cast a regular Dispel.

Check the Force Potentate class.

[MGuy]

Because this is important:

1) Yes, if you are immune to literally everything else from your buffs

Now just taking this out because this would mean that Kaelik here is going based on the assumption that the "Wizard" here is immune to practically everything else at this point. Yet believes it is insane for me to point out that the Wizard can make himself immune to "stuff" he has a good chance of knowing he's going to encounter.

[Kaelik]

Because this is important:

1) Yes, if you are immune to literally everything else from your buffs

Now just taking this out because this would mean that Kaelik here is going based on the assumption that the "Wizard" here is immune to practically everything else at this point. Yet believes it is insane for me to point out that the Wizard can make himself immune to "stuff" he has a good chance of knowing he's going to encounter.

I am talking about an Incantatrix. Yes, if you have an Incantatrix, you are immune to everything. But if you don't have that many buffs, then it makes no sense to protect against Disjunction, but of course, if you don't have so many buffs, Disjunction does nothing to you but destroy one of your items, whichever one you roll a one on the save of.

[Plebian]

and naturally the caster is the only one that ever matters because this is 3e, who cares if the fighter loses two thirds of his gear because he chose a gotcha class and as such does not deserve to have fun

[Kaelik]

and naturally the caster is the only one that ever matters because this is 3e, who cares if the fighter loses two thirds of his gear because he chose a gotcha class and as such does not deserve to have fun

First of all, if you don't make shitty characters (I know, you only know how to make shitty characters, because you are stupid) then the fighter doesn't lose 2/3rds of his items. The Wizard makes the save on a 1 because he has a will save of +43, but he also has a Fort save of +33. The Fighter, likewise, has a high will save by level 17, and so might lose 3 or 4 items, whoop de fucking do, still better to cast Wail of the banshee.

Secondly, the Caster is almost literally every person in the party.

Wizard/Cleric/Druid/Beguiler/Sorcerer/Dread Necromancer/Bard.

I can add six more people to that party, all of whom are casters. 3e has about 40 classes worth playing. 4e has about 15. Whine to me about Avengers sometime.

[Plebian]

and naturally the caster is the only one that ever matters because this is 3e, who cares if the fighter loses two thirds of his gear because he chose a gotcha class and as such does not deserve to have fun

First of all, if you don't make shitty characters (I know, you only know how to make shitty characters, because you are stupid) then the fighter doesn't lose 2/3rds of his items. The Wizard makes the save on a 1 because he has a will save of +43, but he also has a Fort save of +33. The Fighter, likewise, has a high will save by level 17, and so might lose 3 or 4 items, whoop de fucking do, still better to cast Wail of the banshee.

Secondly, the Caster is almost literally every person in the party.

Wizard/Cleric/Druid/Beguiler/Sorcerer/Dread Necromancer/Bard.

I can add six more people to that party, all of whom are casters. 3e has about 40 classes worth playing. 4e has about 15. Whine to me about Avengers sometime.

you realize it's very possible to have a decent chance at beating even the most twinked-out saves, which you're building for because otherwise your point would be a lot harder to make, just by twinking out your DCs in turn?

also caster is almost any person in the party for your ideal party because casters are the classes that don't immediately yell "gotcha you stupid fuck, thought you were playing a game huh nope you're expected to play system mastery" after level 6 or so

3e has about 40 classes (I am guessing you're counting PrCs as classes which is amusing) 'worth playing' because the majority of them are just full spell progression caster PrCs with extra shit given to them, because casters were ever so underpowered before.

oh and 4e has about 36 classes worth playing, which means all of them.

I mean I guess you assume that everyone who wants to play a game wants to do charop builds and if a class isn't good enough you home in on one that is, but most people I've played any edition with don't want to bend the rules till they scream and many DMs I've played with will punish such antisocial behavior by exploiting the weaknesses of any such build.

4e's nice because while certainly there is a degree of system mastery, something fully introduced in 3e and it should go die alone, every power for every class can still contribute, and a lot of the people I play with don't pay any attention to charop. they still contribute meaningfully and, more importantly, they have fun. and I have fun playing with them.

[Kaelik]

you realize it's very possible to have a decent chance at beating even the most twinked-out saves, which you're building for because otherwise your point would be a lot harder to make, just by twinking out your DCs in turn?

See, you again obsessively whine about power levels even though you don't actually know anything.

1) i'm not using twinked out saves, I am using fairly standard saves. And no, you can't twink out DCs. Every character ever already has twinked DCs, because DCs are the most important thing to raise for anyone who has them, and also the hardest.

also caster is almost any person in the party for your ideal party because casters are the classes that don't immediately yell "gotcha you stupid fuck, thought you were playing a game huh nope you're expected to play system mastery" after level 6 or so

Yes, people should avoid playing shitty classes. And while there are classes that don't suck and are not casters, there are caster variants of almost any class you could want. Once again, why is "play a good class" such a travesty, when it's universal to every system ever?

3e has about 40 classes (I am guessing you're counting PrCs as classes which is amusing) 'worth playing' because the majority of them are just full spell progression caster PrCs with extra shit given to them, because casters were ever so underpowered before.

You are retarded. There are over 100 full spellcasting progression PrCs. I am not counting any of them. I am counting "Wizard" as one of the 40 classes worth playing, not as 20 of the 40 classes.

oh and 4e has about 36 classes worth playing, which means all of them.

Asserting that Avengers don't suck doesn't mean they actually don't suck, they still suck.

[Plebian]

Yes, people should avoid playing shitty classes. And while there are classes that don't suck and are not casters, there are caster variants of almost any class you could want. Once again, why is "play a good class" such a travesty, when it's universal to every system ever?

because "play a good class" should be "play a class", but since you appear to hate the merest concept of class balance I really don't expect you to understand that a game should not have pitfalls for new players to drop into simply because they think Conan is a badass.

You are retarded. There are over 100 full spellcasting progression PrCs. I am not counting any of them. I am counting "Wizard" as one of the 40 classes worth playing, not as 20 of the 40 classes.

oh so please name those 40 classes, I am absolutely certain the majority of them are not in fact castaaahahahahahaha oh who am I kidding of course the majority of good classes in 3e are casters, martials are just pure shit without spell, feat, and PrC support unless you count the Tome of Battle but people really seem to hate that book because how dare martials encroach on caster supremacy

Asserting that Avengers don't suck doesn't mean they actually don't suck, they still suck.

asserting that a class sucks because you don't understand 4e doesn't mean they actually suck

also Avengers are just fine, but I guess since they don't nova like some other strikers you want to believe they suck. only they have plenty of out-of-turn attacks, leader- and controller-ish powers, can function as defenders, do radiant damage (one of the best damage types for all-around usefulness), and have an incredibly low miss chance.

but since they don't nova very hard they are obviously bad because... hell, I don't know, you people seem to hate the idea of designated roles but as soon as anything blurs the lines between roles (like most classes) it's automatically a bad thing

[Kaelik]

because "play a good class" should be "play a class", but since you appear to hate the merest concept of class balance I really don't expect you to understand that a game should not have pitfalls for new players to drop into simply because they think Conan is a badass.

Um... Yes, that's true. Which is why I play with a huge set of houserules that adds many more good classes, and replaces many bad classes with good classes, and why I as a DM divert newbies away from bad classes. And thus, I have a really good, fun game that is in all way's superior to the 4e shit grind. But much the same effect can be managed by simply playing 3e, and choosing good classes.

oh so please name those 40 classes, I am absolutely certain the majority of them are not in fact castaaahahahahahaha oh who am I kidding of course the majority of good classes in 3e are casters, martials are just pure shit without spell, feat, and PrC support

So? Once again, if you happen to being playing a really good game that is very fun, and provides for a superb experience, why does the fact that by making bad decisions, you would not enjoy that game suddenly make the game so terrible?

1-5) Warlock, Rogue, Warblade, Psychic Warrior, Crusader
6-10) Ranger, Duskblade, Binder, Swordsage, Bard
11-15) Beguiler, Dread Necromancer, Sorcerer, Favored Soul
16-20) Psion, Ardent, Wilder, Eurdite, Dragonfire Adept
21-25) Wizard, Cleric, Druid, Archivist, Artificer
26-30) Ur Priest, Nar Demonbinder, Sublime Chord, Chameleon, Factotum
35-40) Master of Many Forms, Spellthief, Totemist, Incarnate

Oh noes, only 39, I guess later I can actually look at my books and find one more.

asserting that a class sucks because you don't understand 4e doesn't mean they actually suck

Your ignorance of 3e has been extensively proven. Anyone who understands 4e, and has any kind of standards can see that the Avenger sucks compared to the Ranger/Fighter/Wizard/Cleric godmode classes.

[Plebian]

Um... Yes, that's true. Which is why I play with a huge set of houserules that adds many more good classes, and replaces many bad classes with good classes, and why I as a DM divert newbies away from bad classes. And thus, I have a really good, fun game that is in all way's superior to the 4e shit grind. But much the same effect can be managed by simply playing 3e, and choosing good classes.

oohhh, so you agree that it takes houserules to make 3e playable at all? also the minute you have to say "no, don't choose that class, it's completely worthless after level 6 and really you shouldn't ever take more than two levels of it" you can immediately be certain that you are playing a really bad system

So? Once again, if you happen to being playing a really good game that is very fun, and provides for a superb experience, why does the fact that by making bad decisions, you would not enjoy that game suddenly make the game so terrible?

yes, truly a conundrum. why do pitfalls for anyone who is not an experienced players make a game bad? how about this; if you started playing any game and made a choice based on your personal preferences, and then after several sessions of playing the game were told that your personal preferences were really stupid and worthless, would you be playing a good game?

now it's nice if you have the foreknowledge to say "well I may prefer to make X but because it's completely useless I will make Y even though it's not really what I want" but that's nothing but a huge, glaring flaw in design

1-5) Warlock, Rogue, Warblade, Psychic Warrior, Crusader
6-10) Ranger, Duskblade, Binder, Swordsage, Bard
11-15) Beguiler, Dread Necromancer, Sorcerer, Favored Soul
16-20) Psion, Ardent, Wilder, Eurdite, Dragonfire Adept
21-25) Wizard, Cleric, Druid, Archivist, Artificer
26-30) Ur Priest, Nar Demonbinder, Sublime Chord, Chameleon, Factotum
35-40) Master of Many Forms, Spellthief, Totemist, Incarnate

do you really, really not see the hilarity that most of the 39 'good' classes in 3e are casters

because wow you just summed up a lot of what is wrong with the system right there. "well if you want to be good you pretty much have to cast spells, otherwise you're basically shit" is a horrible design decision; would you play Monopoly after the first time if you started and, as soon as you bought Park Place, you were told that because you chose the little doggy you had to give your dice to the guy who chose the car?

Your ignorance of 3e has been extensively proven. Anyone who understands 4e, and has any kind of standards can see that the Avenger sucks compared to the Ranger/Fighter/Wizard/Cleric godmode classes.

but none of you here have ever shown any indication of understanding 4e, especially since the only 4e, or 3e for that matter, parties you can envision are charop bullshit that is a retarded holdover from 3e that is a retarded holdover from M:tG. system mastery does not make for a more in depth gaming experience, it lets fat, smelly social outcasts pretend like they have some kind of skill because they know to avoid the pitfall of Toughness or taking more than 2 levels of Fighter or other silly examples

oh by the way no class is godmode (barring some of the charop builds like Orbizards that have been errata'd out but hey I bet that never happened in 3e with things like Hulking Hurlers and wait what is Pun Pun again) and I find it really funny that you can only find a single class in 4e to bash ineptly while outright stating that pretty much no martials in 3e are worth a damn. Avengers are solid, steady-DPR strikers with leader and controller flavor depending on power choice, but since they're harder to charop to retardedness obviously they must be horrible.

the most telling part about 4e? there are no gotcha classes, there doesn't have to be the wise bearded shitheel telling you that no, in fact, your character concept is a horrible, stupid idea because Fighter is a bad class. we can show up at a FLGS, throw together a party, and have a blast because everyone will be able to contribute something regardless of class choice.

[Psychic Robot]

there are no gotcha classes

When everything is the same, it's hard to make something that isn't consistent.

[Plebian]

there are no gotcha classes

When everything is the same, it's hard to make something that isn't consistent.

ha ha what an original, witty, and completely incorrect response!

of course if you want to claim all 4e classes are the same because of the power templates you have to also claim that all 3e spells are the same because they, also, use the same template. oh, dear, so do 3e classes! my god every class in 3e must be identical!

[DragonChild]

oh by the way no class is godmode (barring some of the charop builds like Orbizards that have been errata'd out but hey I bet that never happened in 3e with things like Hulking Hurlers and wait what is Pun Pun again) and I find it really funny that you can only find a single class in 4e to bash ineptly while outright stating that pretty much no martials in 3e are worth a damn. Avengers are solid, steady-DPR strikers with leader and controller flavor depending on power choice, but since they're harder to charop to retardedness obviously they must be horrible.

As originally printed, one of the warlock builds is unplayable, and paladins are basically unplayable without supplemental materials. Rangers are crazy, blatantly broken in 4e, as were wizards, until they were heavily errated. Original clerics were also hugely broken for the longest time.

Not to mention 4e is really stupid in a lot of other ways. The RNG is basically broken - the combination of racial bonuses, huge stat differences, and shit like Weapon Expertise matters greatly.

Frankly, if you don't want system mastery to exist, don't play the unending shit that's 4e. It's a LOT easier to transfer good system mastery in 3e, which is mainly about starting class choice, then it is about 4e, which is constant choices and lots of trap options.

[Koumei]

Oh noes, only 39, I guess later I can actually look at my books and find one more.

Ninja. Not the C:Ad one, the Roku one. It's like a Rogue with a Fighter BAB and a free Initiative boost. And yeah, there are probably more but now you have the "promised" 40.

[Kaelik]

oohhh, so you agree that it takes houserules to make 3e playable at all? also the minute you have to say "no, don't choose that class, it's completely worthless after level 6 and really you shouldn't ever take more than two levels of it" you can immediately be certain that you are playing a really bad system

No. If you could read, I just said that you can play 3e just fine with basically no houserules at all, by just picking one of the 40 good classes, instead of the shitty ones.

No houserules, great game.

On th other hand, I say "No, don't choose that class, you will be bored out of your fucking mind and never have any fun ever no matter what level you are" about every single 4e class. So yeah, that's how I can tell that 4e is a shitty system, because 100% of all options are terrible.

On the other hand, lots of options are not terrible in 3e, so... Yeah, play not terrible things.

When I play Risk, I advise people to not choose to never ever attack, because that's a terrible unfun choice that results in losing. That doesn't make Risk a terrible game.

When someone chooses the Wizard class, I advise them to have a high Int, and not put an 8 in it, that doesn't make the Wizard class terrible.

yes, truly a conundrum. why do pitfalls for anyone who is not an experienced players make a game bad? how about this; if you started playing any game and made a choice based on your personal preferences, and then after several sessions of playing the game were told that your personal preferences were really stupid and worthless, would you be playing a good game?

?? You don't have to be experienced. I was not experienced once, I still didn't choose a shitty class, or play like shit. What you have to be is not retarded. I can see how that would be difficult for you, but you shouldn't confuse the two.

now it's nice if you have the foreknowledge to say "well I may prefer to make X but because it's completely useless I will make Y even though it's not really what I want" but that's nothing but a huge, glaring flaw in design

Unless you know, you are playing a fantasy game, in which choosing to be a non fantasy character is a bad idea. Or some kind of skill based game, in which case, choosing to play an unskilled character is shitty.

But yes, it is a design flaw. A design flaw easily overcome by making X, if you really want X. Unlike the design flaw of "being an entire system of thankless trash" which cannot be overcome, hence I play 3e, instead of 4e.

do you really, really not see the hilarity that most of the 39 'good' classes in 3e are casters

I see the hilarity in the fact that most of those classes are capable of taking standard actions. I see the hilarity in the fact that all of those classes are not commoners.

I can't see the hilarity of what is not true. Only 14 of those classes are spellcasters. Unless you try to count the Spell Thief and Ranger, but they don't get spells until level 4, and basically never use them.

If you include manifesters too, then it goes up to 18, 20 with Ranger and Spell Thief. So... yeah. Still only half, not more than half.

because wow you just summed up a lot of what is wrong with the system right there. "well if you want to be good you pretty much have to cast spells, otherwise you're basically shit" is a horrible design decision; would you play Monopoly after the first time if you started and, as soon as you bought Park Place, you were told that because you chose the little doggy you had to give your dice to the guy who chose the car?

I do play Monopoly even though people who don't ever buy property have to give all their money to people who do. I don't consider that horrible design. So everyone makes the smart decision of buying property, and then the game functions quite well.

[LR]

of course if you want to claim all 4e classes are the same because of the power templates you have to also claim that all 3e spells are the same because they, also, use the same template. oh, dear, so do 3e classes! my god every class in 3e must be identical!

So, 4e must have effects that are wildly different from each other like Magic Jar, Create Undead, and Move Earth, right?

[RelentlessImp]

of course if you want to claim all 4e classes are the same because of the power templates you have to also claim that all 3e spells are the same because they, also, use the same template. oh, dear, so do 3e classes! my god every class in 3e must be identical!

So, 4e must have effects that are wildly different from each other like Magic Jar, Create Undead, and Move Earth, right?

Don't do that, he'll call them all 'bullshit plot spells that ruin the game'. Use stuff like Great Thunderclap, Manyjaws, and Wall of Force instead, otherwise you'll break his poor little brain.

[Plebian]

As originally printed, one of the warlock builds is unplayable, and paladins are basically unplayable without supplemental materials. Rangers are crazy, blatantly broken in 4e, as were wizards, until they were heavily errated. Original clerics were also hugely broken for the longest time.

Not to mention 4e is really stupid in a lot of other ways. The RNG is basically broken - the combination of racial bonuses, huge stat differences, and shit like Weapon Expertise matters greatly.

Frankly, if you don't want system mastery to exist, don't play the unending shit that's 4e. It's a LOT easier to transfer good system mastery in 3e, which is mainly about starting class choice, then it is about 4e, which is constant choices and lots of trap options.

some classes are better suited to certain roles and quite a few can be quite easily broken in ways the developers never meant, see the Feycharger and suchlike, but that's a problem inherent to the complexity of the system and I forgive it, mostly because I've never run into anyone who seriously used the retardo Orbizard or Yogihat or other dumb shit for the same reason no one here ever ran into Pun Pun in an actual game.

wait, what do static modifiers have to do with the RNG's functionality? it's a d20, how did it get broken?

also, your solution to getting rid of system mastery is to... go to a system with even more system mastery because of PrCs, hordes of splatbooks each adding new spells/feats/PrCs, and general bad design that favors casters? what? how is making many of the same choices regarding feats/spells and extra ones because of skill and other requirements for PrCs anything but a step down?

also hahahaha system mastery in 3e being mostly about initial class. no, sorry, initial class is a big choice but skills, feats, and PrC choices are just as important

[LR]

some classes are better suited to certain roles and quite a few can be quite easily broken in ways the developers never meant, see the Feycharger and suchlike, but that's a problem inherent to the complexity of the system and I forgive it, mostly because I've never run into anyone who seriously used the retardo Orbizard or Yogihat or other dumb shit for the same reason no one here ever ran into Pun Pun in an actual game.

What are you talking about? To be an Orbizard, you simply have to have Orb of Imposition and take the good powers instead the shitty ones (like Sleep instead of any of the other starting dailies). Being an Orbizard requires very little min-max talent. It's a completely normal build that happens to overpower almost every other build in the game.

wait, what do static modifiers have to do with the RNG's functionality? it's a d20, how did it get broken?

If the base success/failure rate is 50%, and you're up or down 4-6 points, then you're at a huge advantage or disadvantage. If you're up or down 10 points, then you're off the RNG, meaning that the RNG has stopped determining your success or failure. Tiny bonuses that you're supposed to accumulate to stay on the RNG have a tendency to break the RNG if they're neglected or abused.

also, your solution to getting rid of system mastery is to... go to a system with even more system mastery because of PrCs, hordes of splatbooks each adding new spells/feats/PrCs, and general bad design that favors casters? what? how is making many of the same choices regarding feats/spells and extra ones because of skill and other requirements for PrCs anything but a step down?

also hahahaha system mastery in 3e being mostly about initial class. no, sorry, initial class is a big choice but skills, feats, and PrC choices are just as important

The strongest build in the game in terms of winning encounters is Beguiler 20, a class that has none of the "plot-breaking spells" you so despise. You can choose random skills and feats if you want, because your spell list will carry you through the entire game if you play with any skill at all. Actually, pretty much all of the really effective builds either take 20 levels in a class or only take PrCs because the PrCs hand out free candy. Having level-appropriate effects really is everything in D&D.

As for your other point, 3e's overall design has nothing to do with the Fighter problem. Fighters suck because the devs started with the premise that martial characters shouldn't be able to do anything that a human at the peak of training couldn't do. 4e did nothing to change that; they just dropped the balance level. However, by dropping that premise and replacing it with the premise that Fighters should be playing the fantasy game, it's completely possible to make 3e Fighters that don't suck. One could get even better results by dropping the idea that Fighters should exist at all past the "Mundane Hero" stage and replacing them entirely with Shadow Warriors and Mage Knights.

[Plebian]

If the base success/failure rate is 50%, and you're up or down 4-6 points, then you're at a huge advantage or disadvantage. If you're up or down 10 points, then you're off the RNG, meaning that the RNG has stopped determining your success or failure. Tiny bonuses that you're supposed to accumulate to stay on the RNG have a tendency to break the RNG if they're neglected or abused.

...and? I don't even see a point here besides "well, you see, if things happen then things happen"

The strongest build in the game in terms of winning encounters is Beguiler 20, a class that has none of the "plot-breaking spells" you so despise. You can choose random skills and feats if you want, because your spell list will carry you through the entire game if you play with any skill at all. Actually, pretty much all of the really effective builds either take 20 levels in a class or only take PrCs because the PrCs hand out free candy. Having level-appropriate effects really is everything in D&D.

yeah, we all know that casters are less reliant than anyone else on the retarded PrC splatfest, though you still have to pay pretty close attention to your feats and skills if you want to qualify for the really nifty PrCs like Archmage or Initiate of the Sevenfold Veil as soon as possible.

As for your other point, 3e's overall design has nothing to do with the Fighter problem. Fighters suck because the devs started with the premise that martial characters shouldn't be able to do anything that a human at the peak of training couldn't do. 4e did nothing to change that; they just dropped the balance level.

they definitely increased the usefulness of martial characters, so I dunno that does sort of change it

it's just that casters had so much further to fall than martials had to rise that it seems, to idiots, like martials didn't get much of a boost and wizards went from ruling the universe to contributing about as much as the now-boosted martials.

[LR]

...and? I don't even see a point here besides "well, you see, if things happen then things happen"

Because they were too lazy or incompetent to get the math right in the PHB, 4e is a game where you're expected to accumulate tiny bonuses. Sometimes, players accumulate too many or not enough tiny bonuses and the game snaps in half.

yeah, we all know that casters are less reliant than anyone else on the retarded PrC splatfest, though you still have to pay pretty close attention to your feats and skills if you want to qualify for the really nifty PrCs like Archmage or Initiate of the Sevenfold Veil as soon as possible.

But you don't need to get into Archmage or IotSV. PrCs are optional things that people who like to see builds come together can take. They're also tools that the DM can use to grant campaign-specific powers or shore up underperforming characters, which is actually their original purpose. You may have been convinced otherwise, but this is what a PrC is supposed to look like. All of the printed PrCs are just examples.

they definitely increased the usefulness of martial characters, so I dunno that does sort of change it

it's just that casters had so much further to fall than martials had to rise that it seems, to idiots, like martials didn't get much of a boost and wizards went from ruling the universe to contributing about as much as the now-boosted martials.

Ruling the universe was a thing that high-level characters in 3e were expected to do, so I don't really see that as a problem. Killing gods, taking their stuff, and curing cancer are all expected actions in high-level D&D.

[Plebian]

Because they were too lazy or incompetent to get the math right in the PHB, 4e is a game where you're expected to accumulate tiny bonuses. Sometimes, players accumulate too many or not enough tiny bonuses and the game snaps in half.

it's possible in some circumstances with people actively trying to break the system this might happen but no it does not happen very often nor does the game snap in half, but nice try

But you don't need to get into Archmage or IotSV. PrCs are optional things that people who like to see builds come together can take. They're also tools that the DM can use to grant campaign-specific powers or shore up underperforming characters, which is actually their original purpose. You may have been convinced otherwise, but this is what a PrC is supposed to look like. All of the printed PrCs are just examples.

hahahahaha okay, sure man. so I guess there's actual proof besides your belief that PrCs are meant to be personalized? no? oh shit I guess you're talking out of your ass.

also, of course PrCs are completely optional in the exact same way it's completely optional to choose Fighter as your starting class. you can do it but you'd have to be either new to the system or stupid to not go after something that gave you power just because you read more than other people. this is a bad thing. in any co-operative game it's always a bad idea to give people with more knowledge of obscure material an immense mechanical advantage just because they've got more time to waste on the hobby.

now 4e does do this, I won't defend it there, system mastery is a long-lived and terrible disease, but having played with people who charoped their builds to shit and back and someone who genuinely has fun playing a character whose theme they enjoy? I'll pick the person playing a character that they actually want to play rather than the compromise-because-of-power player. and 4e shows a much, much smaller difference between a charop build and someone playing what they think is fun.

Ruling the universe was a thing that high-level characters in 3e were expected to do, so I don't really see that as a problem. Killing gods, taking their stuff, and curing cancer all all expected actions in high-level D&D.

actually mostly it was just casters doing all the cool stuff at higher levels; a high level martial without the ToB (Book of Weeaboo Fightan Magic is so much more hilariously amusing in the same way 4rry is but I will stick with the actual name) is still just doing his retarded "I full-round attack for some damage, then the caster obviates my entire reason for existing" gig

but 4e has the same epic levels dynamic; at 21+ you are expected to do world, if not plane, changing adventures where minor things like worldwide plagues and demon/devil wars are just inconveniences you resolve on your way to bigger things. so I dunno what your point is.

[LR]

it's possible in some circumstances with people actively trying to break the system this might happen but no it does not happen very often nor does the game snap in half, but nice try

It happens whenever a player chooses an inappropriate build or attribute spread, so it's bound to happen at least once to any "roleplayer."

hahahahaha okay, sure man. so I guess there's actual proof besides your belief that PrCs are meant to be personalized? no? oh shit I guess you're talking out of your ass.

The example prestige classes are certainly not all encompassing or definitive. They might not even be appropriate for your campaign. The best prestige classes for your campaign are the ones you tailor make for yourself.

Yeah I guess I am.

also, of course PrCs are completely optional in the exact same way it's completely optional to choose Fighter as your starting class. you can do it but you'd have to be either new to the system or stupid to not go after something that gave you power just because you read more than other people. this is a bad thing. in any co-operative game it's always a bad idea to give people with more knowledge of obscure material an immense mechanical advantage just because they've got more time to waste on the hobby.

Barring Faerun material, casters PrCs don't really give you that much power. IotSV is a cool class for people who really love the Most Excellent Prismatic Spray, but it doesn't appreciably increase a caster's effectiveness compared to their normal spellcasting.

now 4e does do this, I won't defend it there, system mastery is a long-lived and terrible disease, but having played with people who charoped their builds to shit and back and someone who genuinely has fun playing a character whose theme they enjoy? I'll pick the person playing a character that they actually want to play rather than the compromise-because-of-power player. and 4e shows a much, much smaller difference between a charop build and someone playing what they think is fun.

My first character was a melee Bard with Improved Unarmed Strike and Endurance because I made my character based on how each choice seemed to fit my character concept. It sucked, and I am glad that the game ended early and that I learned to min-max after it. How much better would it be if I started in 4e and wanted to play a ranged Inspiring Warlord?

but 4e has the same epic levels dynamic; at 21+ you are expected to do world, if not plane, changing adventures where minor things like worldwide plagues and demon/devil wars are just inconveniences you resolve on your way to bigger things. so I dunno what your point is.

But you're never an active participant in any of this. All the world-changing powers are in the hands of the BBEG or come from the MacGuffin. The scenery changes, but the actions available to your character never do. No matter how many rituals I look at, none of them seem to work as suitable replacements for their 3e counterparts. It's rather disheartening, as none of the 3e spells permanently drain your wealth.

[Judging__Eagle]

Plebian, can a 4e Adventurer at level 20 create a demiplane?

Can they lead an army via in-game rules (not DM ad hoc)?

Can they break the spine of an enemy kingdom under their sandalled feet?

Can they bash down a castle's doors and murder the guards and king inside?

Can they face down Asmodeus and murder him in single combat? While their allies take on the other lords of the Nine in an attempt to become the new lords of the nine?

Because, seriously, that's something that 2E D&D was all about, and 3E could let you do.

If 4e does not allow PCs to do such things, it is no longer D&D, but a pale, shallow, ghost of the original game systems.

Even if you are a martial character using WoTC material, you can seriously murderize Gra'azt, Demogorgon, Belial, Orcus or whoever pissed you off today.

4E took a step away from the original Heavy Metal/Metal Hurlant european sci-fi/fantasy graphic stories of the 1970's that actually inspired original D&D... and superficially borrowed from.... rather boring games like WoW.

Until you are able to do the research and understand what D&D is supposed to look like (aka Heavy Metal, Warhammer, Warhammer 40k, not Lord of the Rings, Pendragon, Middle Earth Role Play, or Warhammer Fantasy RPG) you are always going to make the assumption that you should be playing a small, boring, uncreative, game.

If you don't want to play Screaming Metal, don't play D&D. Take your small, boring, uncreative story ideas and cart them out of here, because D&D is not about them.

[Swordslinger]

But you're never an active participant in any of this. All the world-changing powers are in the hands of the BBEG or come from the MacGuffin.

Anything that can drastically alter the game like that is going to be some obscure long lost ritual. Otherwise, the world would have already changed before you even played by someone else using this ability. Anything world shaking must be special, because if anyone could do it, the world would have already adapted or been destroyed by it. They aren't going to sell a blow up the world or infinite gold spell at magimart.

As far as world changing stuff... killing people is always world changing. Epic level 4E characters can go slaughter the king and take his stuff. They just can't do it with a snap of their fingers.

The 3E world changing effects was a result of the design team being lazy and not thinking things through, not any kind of great design. You can buy magic items that can generate infinite gold... someone is selling that, for gold, when they have infinity gold anyway. That's beyond stupid.