![]() These two are obvious enough that most sane DMs wouldn't allow them, based on a combination of game balance, fairness, and world versimilitude.ĭruids are broken, sorcerors with magic missle and access to a lot of metamagic feats are broken, spell compendium is broken, magic item compendium is broken, book of nine swords is broken, warlocks are broken, spiked chains are broken, etc etc, ad infinitum. They get good options in and out of combat, and the options scale to some extent with level (advanced talents, etc.), unlike the fighter's feats.Īnything is broken if a Rules Lawyering or Power Mongering gamer tries. The Pathfinder rogue and barbarian are well-conceived. If your game is 5% melee combat and 95% investigation and skills/utility spells use, the duskblade will sit on the sidelines and sulk.ģ. If your game is 100% melee combat, the duskblade will be overpowered. For example, the Duskblade is very powerful in a limited area of expertise, but nigh-well useless outside of that area. Many of the full bases classes from the "Complete" books are pretty weak - essentially fighters with their feats chosen for them (e.g., Samurai, Swashbuckler) - and/or overly-focused. People who never played 1e, and/or who think that 3.0/3.5 are OK at high levels, will therefore perceive this attempt at re-equalization as "breaking" the game.Ģ. ![]() The Tome of Battle tried to overcome these nerfs by essentially designing martial classes as if they were spellcasters. As a result, full casters at high level pretty much own 3.0/3.5. Class design in 3.0 was more or less based around hamstringing the warrior classes: they lost the ability to move and full attack, they lost the exclusivity of iterative attacks and their iterative attacks were assigned penalties, they lost the ability to reliably disrupt spellcasting (Concentration checks), their level progression at high levels was pegged to the spellcasters' instead of being accelerated, and their high-level saves got a lot worse. In terms of independent responses, I'd suggest the following:ġ. Not much to add to Hogarth's excellent post. To turn the conversation around a bit, what about the good classes.ones well thought out and well done. What other books or classes seem broken/overpowered/underpowered?ģ. Why is the Tome of Battle considered broken?Ģ. So, I wanted to get this forum's opinion on the matter. Someone else in the thread I linked to mentioned something about the "Complete" series of books being poorly conceived. The Book of 9 Swords was brought up in passing and it's not the first time I've heard it was "broken." I'm in a campaign right now where the other party member is playing a swordsage and I haven't seen too much of a problem.but there is only two of us so the DM really focuses on tailoring it to our strengths and weaknesses. I was reading this thread about multiclassing. I haven't been able to really see many classes played over a long period of time. I'm fairly new to D&D (only been playing for a year or so) and I live in a small town.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |