# Can we stop the Angel Summoner BMX Bandit comparisons



## rkwoodard (May 13, 2012)

So,  

I have seen the Angel Summoner & BMX Bandit videos brought up a lot and decided to watch one.

I don't understand why anyone would compare that to any edition of D&D.  I don't care how powerful you think Clerics/Druids/Wizards (or Magic-Users) are, it is not remotely the same.

From what I saw:  BMX Bandit scopes out the situation devices a plan. A plan that revolves around his apparent sole physical skill (Bike Riding) and then the Angel Summoner points out that he can solve it by summoning Angels.

Some Notes:

1) BMX Bandit apparently has the investigation/stealth/gather knowledge skills, and finds out what needs to be done.

2) BMX Bandit is the leader, as Angel Summoner never questions the goals only the methods.

3) BMX Bandit should realize that it is his own fault that he has no combat skills should stop trying to plan attacks based around his feeble physical skill and/or pick up a freakin gun.

Also,  if this were an RPG Game, why would the DM put these two up against mundane only enemies?  Why not have an evil witchdoctor that can block some angel power.


Sorry, this is all pretty pointless, but it is my rant and i am sticking to it.

RK


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 13, 2012)

This is thë BMX Bandit of rant threads.

First you say:


> I don't understand why anyone would compare that to any edition of D&D. I don't care how powerful you think Clerics/Druids/Wizards (or Magic-Users) are, it is not remotely the same.



then you say:



> From what I saw: BMX Bandit scopes out the situation devices a plan. A plan that revolves around his apparent sole physical skill (Bike Riding) and then the Angel Summoner points out that he can solve it by summoning Angels.



Which is the very basis for the comparison.

After a certain point in many editions of D&D, there is virtually no situation that an optimized full caster can't solve more quickly, efficiently and effectively with spells than any of the non-casting classes.  In some cases, if simply hitting something in melee is the answer, a spellcaster may be able to out-melee a melee-focused non-caster.

I'm not saying this is badwrongfun or anything like that, just stating the facts of the game's mechanics.


----------



## SteveC (May 13, 2012)

Whenever I see threads like this (and there have been a lot of them, especially with 5E on the horizon) I'd suggest that before anyone makes them, they play a BMX Bandit character for several months.

Showing up for a game knowing that the only thing you can do is be a hit point sponge for other characters is not something that I can see sparing an afternoon or evening with.

It's just a suggestion. People may have trouble remembering, but discussions of earlier editions at the time they were current were filled with "this class is worthless and doesn't get played." It seems only in retrospect that we talk about how great our monk or 3E bard was.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 13, 2012)

> Showing up for a game knowing that the only thing you can do is be a hit point sponge for other characters is not something that I can see sparing an afternoon or evening with.




I find ways to contribute and make my own fun.


----------



## TarionzCousin (May 13, 2012)

Whenever I DM, I don't allow bicycles of any kind.


----------



## MichaelSomething (May 13, 2012)

SteveC said:


> It seems only in retrospect that we talk about how great our monk or 3E bard was.




3.5 Bards can be very useful if you optimize with enough splat.  If giving everyone a +4 to attack and damage rolls at level 3 isn't good,  I don't know what is


----------



## Nebten (May 13, 2012)

I thought Nicole Kidman was pretty cute in that movie. I always wanted wakie talkies after seeing it, more so then a BMX bike

Am I the only one that has no idea what you guys are referring too?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 13, 2012)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbzUfV3_JIA&feature=youtube_gdata_player]BMX Bandit and Angel Summoner - Mitchell & Webb - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Holy Bovine (May 13, 2012)

In answer to the OPs' original question;


No.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (May 13, 2012)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I find ways to contribute and make my own fun.




I wonder how you would feel if you played with paul. (disclaimer paul has been a good friend for 10+ years, has played 3 edtions of D&D, and 2 of WW with us, and is welcome at my table any day, this is not bashing him or even saying he is always a problem)

a tale of 3 paul characters.

1) the bomb diggity swordsman... 3.5. His and another character were brothers, and they rolled almost the same stats, except for Str, and Cha they had the same stats, paul had a 18 cha and a 10 str, kurt had a 16 str and 15 cha. They both had 16 dex. Kurt was playing a Fighter going for kensi and wanted to come in saying "I am the worlds greatest swordsman" Paul wanted to be a warlock with a finessed rapier and one or 2 cool moves his older brother taught him.

the problem: becuse paul had his feats arranged better, and had an atwill attack called something blow (horrandas maybe) that let him add his eldritch blast damage to his sword damage, he would routinly hit on lower numbers, and do 3-4 times the damage. Kurt tried to just make his character better, but kept hitting a wall. Then the final straw came when paul's character took a feat from tomb of battle that let him have a manuver that let him make his next attack roll a touch attack, then used it to make an item that gave him a second use of that per encounter...

2) the Azrathel show...3.0 forggoten realms game where we had 8 players, 1 monk, 1 fighter/rogue, 2 clerics, 1 barbarian/ranger, 1 psion, and 2 wizards. 1 wizard was played by Ross, he was a general wizard with a 16 Int, and a really low dex (I wish I could remember how low, I just know we use to joke when he rolled low on intitive, he went next round)   Things started off a little rocky when Paul used a feat and his 18 Int to count as a 20 for spell casting, and all of his money getting a magic tatto that let him recall 1 spell per day. meaning at 3rd level he had double the spells of the other wizard. It only got worse when we leveled and he spent xp on scrolls, and later wands. He always had the right spell, he always had 10 items holding extra spells, and he spent every free gp he could get crafting scrolls, wands, and pearls of power.

3) That damn Barbarian... this is the only one I did not DM, I was infact the one being overshadowed. 3.5 almost the end (4e may have already been anounced) Paul played a barbarian 1 or 2/ cleric X. He had night sticks and divine meta magic. I was a Warblade/Swordsage/Master of 9 who the DM felt so sorry for he gave me (from an NPC a direct gift) a belt that was a belt of magnficents +6 (so +6 all stats) that also counted as a belt of battle (spend charges for extra actions), and a belt of healing (spend charges to heal self or touched other) that had double set of charges on both, a +6 Keen sword, and the books that up both Int and Str by 4 each... and I still could not at equal level keep up with that cleric in a fight.

now those are not the only or even the worst ones, but being 1 player who was not trying to step on toes... ok maybe the last time it was... ruined other people's concepts.

Now as bad as that was, let me tell you of the one who was worse... chris (remeber that last disclaimer, well we don't want this guy back...)

1) Alex evergreen. 2e A ranger duiled into wizard who use to say "What do I need you guys for" starting around 14th level. at 17th level he became an archmage (3rd party role aids suplimant) and would solo encounters well we just sat back. At one point becuse we would let him run off on his own, he killed a black dragon solo.

2) I can't even remember the character name without rage... he play a psion useing the cards for 2e. He had Kenetic control, worm hole, and some sorta tk blast thing. He was scry and dieing things from level 6 or 7.


----------



## Elf Witch (May 13, 2012)

SteveC said:


> Whenever I see threads like this (and there have been a lot of them, especially with 5E on the horizon) I'd suggest that before anyone makes them, they play a BMX Bandit character for several months.
> 
> Showing up for a game knowing that the only thing you can do is be a hit point sponge for other characters is not something that I can see sparing an afternoon or evening with.
> 
> It's just a suggestion. People may have trouble remembering, but discussions of earlier editions at the time they were current were filled with "this class is worthless and doesn't get played." It seems only in retrospect that we talk about how great our monk or 3E bard was.




I have played many a fighter, monk and bard and you know what I never flt useless. I was a member of a team and I had my skills. I had a blast playing those characters and will play those classes again.  

To be honest I think the people who complain about this have either had bad DMs who didn't know how to tailor adventures for the characters in his party or didn't follow the rules. In a recent thread someone was complaining about how a wizard could know every spell. His DM never made the player roll a spellcraft check to see if he could actually put the spell in his book nor did he make the character do any bookkeeping so he had never had to buy a new spellbook.

There was another thread about how the party was knocked out by a high level monk because the magic users of the party couldn't get past his improved evasion. 

I also think some players judge how good their character is on how much damage they can do. The fact that having a bard in the party helps everyone do their job better seems lost on these type of players. 

At least I now know where this very annoying meme comes from.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 13, 2012)

> I wonder how you would feel if you played with paul.




As a player: Wouldn't bug me at all.  I have fun playing my PC; what you or anyone else plays is your business.

As a DM: Wouldn't bug me at all.  Any trick available to the players, I can use myself.


----------



## S'mon (May 13, 2012)

No, I think it's an excellent comparison - Thief vs Magic-User in 1e/2e, or any non-caster vs caster in 3e. Playing the non-caster often felt exactly like being the BMX Bandit.


----------



## Elf Witch (May 13, 2012)

S'mon said:


> No, I think it's an excellent comparison - Thief vs Magic-User in 1e/2e, or any non-caster vs caster in 3e. Playing the non-caster often felt exactly like being the BMX Bandit.




It just befuddles me that so many people have such different experiences playing with the same rule set. 

Which is why I doubt they will ever make a game that satisfies all of us.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 13, 2012)

S'mon said:


> No, I think it's an excellent comparison - Thief vs Magic-User in 1e/2e, or any non-caster vs caster in 3e. Playing the non-caster often felt exactly like being the BMX Bandit.




Mechanically, it's accurate.

However, since my main concern is playing my PC in a way consistent with his personality as opposed to mechanics, it never bugs me.  Which is one reason I enjoyed playing things like Monks, massively multiclassed PCs (including spellcasters), characters with level adjustments, and so forth.

IOW, I'm more concerned that my PC does what he/she/it should do, not whether a demigod in training walking beside him could do it better.


----------



## Morrus (May 13, 2012)

I have absolutely no clue what this thread is about.


----------



## hafrogman (May 13, 2012)

Morrus said:


> I have absolutely no clue what this thread is about.



Mitchell and Webb

plus

The video in post 8

plus

"Quadratic Wizard vs. Linear Fighter"

I do recommend looking into their work, they're quite amusing.


----------



## Mark CMG (May 13, 2012)

At Gary Con a guy showed up with a Velocipede and we all said, "Ooh" and "Ahh" a lot.  A LOT!


----------



## Piratecat (May 13, 2012)

I played in a game recently where one PC did 154 points of damage a round to the dragon we were fighting. My PC (albeit an unoptimized NPC I was given) did 7. I was a fighter. it was a tremendously boring 3 hours.

I should have hit him with my BMX!


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 13, 2012)

> I should have hit him with my BMX!




The dragon, the PC, the player or the DM?


----------



## Piratecat (May 13, 2012)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> The dragon, the PC, the player or the DM?



Two of the aforementioned four. I love everyone in the game - they're all my best friends from high school - but saying they're playing high powered, lopsided, Monty Haul D&D* is an insult to high powered, lopsided, Monty Haul D&D elsewhere. On the plus side, I served as a highly effective one-round-meat-shield!  

* Except for my character. My PC was normal powered. Another PC had an AC 23 points higher than mine. I could only make saves vs the breath weapon on an 18 or higher. Want to guess which of us the dragon kept attacking?


----------



## rkwoodard (May 13, 2012)

*sorry*

Sorry to those of you that did not get the reference.  I had seen the reference in a few threads and had to look it up myself.

Now, I realize that these problems seem to be at a higher level than I have traditionally played. And we never played with a lot of splat books as well.

In My Opinion. It was just that any game that ran like those videos, would have to have a lot of the blame on the DM, not the system.

I have no doubt that there is problems at higher levels, it is just that 10-12 has always been my favorite range to top off the campaign and move on.

RK


----------



## Greg K (May 13, 2012)

GMforPowergamers said:


> now those are not the only or even the worst ones, but being 1 player who was not trying to step on toes... ok maybe the last time it was... ruined other people's concepts.




A lot of what you described sounds like issues with  a) the DM not doing his "job" of controlling what comes in play at the table and fixing inequities that arise and b)the player not thinking about others at the table. Just because something can be thought of or allowed does not mean it is a good idea to allow it in practice.  Good friend or not, Paul's characters would not have flied in my campaigns.  Unlike a video game, as a DM, I can say, "No!".  Optional things like  divine metamagic, night sticks, and several other  things would have been off limits.  Ruining other people's concepts, that is not going to fly either. In the first instance, he would not have been allowed the ToB feat in my game (well, I don't allow the book anyway) and, if the feat allowing the eldritch blast to be channeled was causing problems, it would have been disallowed as well.



.


----------



## Plane Sailing (May 13, 2012)

Speaking as a moderator I'd be happy to never see a 'BMX bandit vs Angel Summoner' comparison used in a D&D thread ever again.

Why?

Because it is hyperbole used to shut down discussion. Hyperbole is fun as humour on occasion, but hyperbole used to shut down discussions just irritates people.

Bottom line? D&D has over 35 years of history which says that some people have fun playing fighters, some people have fun playing wizards etc. etc. Thus grand statements of the troof about relative power of classes (which typically ignore the whole magic item dimension which has been core to D&D since its inception) are, in my mind, somewhat lacking. It says more about the prejudices of individuals than the game as played by most of the players over most of its history. Somebody's bad experience in a game doesn't translate into the experience of everyone, everywhere.

There are some people who ended up banned from ENworld because they couldn't get the bit out of their teeth on this issue, and it became the basis of argument for every discussion they had. I'd hope to not see that again.

Regards


----------



## Loonook (May 13, 2012)

Plane Sailing said:


> Speaking as a moderator I'd be happy to never see a 'BMX bandit vs Angel Summoner' comparison used in a D&D thread ever again.
> 
> Bottom line? D&D has over 35 years of history which says that some people have fun playing fighters, some people have fun playing wizards etc. etc. Thus grand statements of the troof about relative power of classes (which typically ignore the whole magic item dimension which has been core to D&D since its inception) are, in my mind, somewhat lacking. It says more about the prejudices of individuals than the game as played by most of the players over most of its history. Somebody's bad experience in a game doesn't translate into the experience of everyone, everywhere.
> 
> Regards




I feel wrong giving a Moderator XP... But I have to agree with this specifically.  Sadly those who do complain about things don't look back over the rest of the game's history... And when enlightened about how each edition handles it, usually cause a lot of troubles/break up threads .

So I guess you do get XP .

Slainte,

-Loonook.


----------



## MichaelSomething (May 13, 2012)

Elf Witch said:


> To be honest I think the people who complain about this have either had bad DMs who didn't know how to tailor adventures for the characters in his party or didn't follow the rules. In a recent thread someone was complaining about how a wizard could know every spell. His DM never made the player roll a spellcraft check to see if he could actually put the spell in his book nor did he make the character do any bookkeeping so he had never had to buy a new spellbook.
> 
> There was another thread about how the party was knocked out by a high level monk because the magic users of the party couldn't get past his improved evasion.




The system works fine if everyone in the group (DM included) has a good social contract and similar levels of system mastery.  While house rules and such can alter a game greatly; the idea is that even when you follow the rules to the letter, the wizards will render the fighter impotent.  It really occurs only above level 12 or so though (IMO).       

If improved evasion can stop a magic user, then that magic user sucks  
A real magic user would have spells that target will, reflex, touch AC, and a whole bunch of other options.


----------



## Loonook (May 13, 2012)

MichaelSomething said:


> If improved evasion can stop a magic user, then that magic user sucks
> A real magic user would have spells that target will, reflex, touch AC, and a whole bunch of other options.




And that's the thing.  Fighters so rarely get to change their target numbers without investing a large sum of feats into various odd forms of martial prowess.  If a fighter could target Will without having to invest in weak powers like Intimidating Presence or similar he could be more effective... But many consider this to be 'magic'.  Of course, morale existed in earlier versions of the game so...

Slainte,

-Loonook.


----------



## Nifft (May 13, 2012)

Plane Sailing said:


> Because it is hyperbole used to shut down discussion. Hyperbole is fun as humour on occasion, but hyperbole used to shut down discussions just irritates people.



 Intentions are difficult to guess, and even more difficult to correctly assign for all posters who have ever, or will ever, use a particular argument. I think you overstate.

I've used this as an example (to my players, not here on the forums) of a problem that could happen in 3e which 4e solved.



Plane Sailing said:


> Bottom line? D&D has over 35 years of history which says that some people have fun playing fighters,



 ... at certain levels. If you had spent the last 25 years re-playing levels one through five, it'd be no wonder that you didn't encounter this issue. In fact, you'd probably think the Wizard was totally underpowered! At those levels, in older editions, he probably would be.

At high levels, the issue is readily apparent to many people. The video is a humorous illustration of a point which is (in my experience) very real.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Nifft (May 13, 2012)

MichaelSomething said:


> The system works fine if everyone in the group (DM included) has a good social contract and similar levels of system mastery.  While house rules and such can alter a game greatly; the idea is that even when you follow the rules to the letter, the wizards will render the fighter impotent.  It really occurs only above level 12 or so though (IMO).



 I'll agree that players with similar levels of System Mastery will tend to create characters that don't overshadow each other... but in part that's because they will skip 'underpowered' options entirely, so they might not have to worry about Fighter vs. Wizard because none of them ever take more than 2 levels of Fighter.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## S'mon (May 13, 2012)

Nifft said:


> I
> ... at certain levels. If you had spent the last 25 years re-playing levels one through five, it'd be no wonder that you didn't encounter this issue. In fact, you'd probably think the Wizard was totally underpowered! At those levels, in older editions, he probably would be.
> 
> At high levels, the issue is readily apparent to many people. The video is a humorous illustration of a point which is (in my experience) very real.
> ...




IMO it's only an issue in 3e (and derivatives of 3e). Fighter types stood up well vs M-Us in my 1e-2e AD&D games, at any level. Admittedly no one played single-class Thieves.


----------



## Wiseblood (May 13, 2012)

Nifft said:


> I'll agree that players with similar levels of System Mastery will tend to create characters that don't overshadow each other... but in part that's because they will skip 'underpowered' options entirely, so they might not have to worry about Fighter vs. Wizard because none of them ever take more than 2 levels of Fighter.
> 
> Cheers, -- N





I have seen players that often visit char-op boards and come up with characters, that should be broken but altogether fail when introduced to actual adventuring. There is a difference between system mastery and alleged system mastery.


----------



## SteveC (May 13, 2012)

Nifft said:


> I'll agree that players with similar levels of System Mastery will tend to create characters that don't overshadow each other... but in part that's because they will skip 'underpowered' options entirely, so they might not have to worry about Fighter vs. Wizard because none of them ever take more than 2 levels of Fighter.
> 
> Cheers, -- N



Pretty much this: if you have experience with a system, you avoid trap options and don't make bad decisions. What I have objected to when it was the case, and hope we don't return to now, is when entire classes become trap options without extremely specific builds. 

Players who are experienced, and are excellent roleplayers can do a good job with whatever kind of character they're given, but the core of good game design is to reduce the instances of material you're writing not being used by anyone who has experience with the game.

Just a quick edit: I agree with the sentiment that BMX Bandit versus Angel Summoner isn't all that productive, but that's because I tend to play the Angel Summoner character. I'm looking for a situation where no one has to feel like the BMX Bandit by the rules.


----------



## Nifft (May 13, 2012)

S'mon said:


> IMO it's only an issue in 3e (and derivatives of 3e). Fighter types stood up well vs M-Us in my 1e-2e AD&D games, at any level.



 What levels were those?

In my recollection, 1e games fell apart before 10th level, while 3e was a robust enough system to see us through the teens. (Never played 2e.)

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Nifft (May 13, 2012)

Wiseblood said:


> I have seen players that often visit char-op boards and come up with characters, that should be broken but altogether fail when introduced to actual adventuring. There is a difference between system mastery and alleged system mastery.



 Sure, like the Druid character who has the awesome ability to turn into any animal the player researches and writes down stats for, but he's limited by the lazy player who never writes down stats after the first two animals ("wolf" and "bear").

Yes, it's possible to limit a strong character through bad play by the player, but "bad play" isn't something that any system should rely upon. 

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 13, 2012)

FWIW, I've played every edition of the game except 4Ed into "Epic" levels, and I still don't care if I'm playing BMX Bandit in a party of Angel Summoners.


----------



## S'mon (May 13, 2012)

Nifft said:


> What levels were those?
> 
> In my recollection, 1e games fell apart before 10th level, while 3e was a robust enough system to see us through the teens. (Never played 2e.)
> 
> Cheers, -- N




1st through 117th.


----------



## S'mon (May 13, 2012)

Elf Witch said:


> It just befuddles me that so many people have such different experiences playing with the same rule set.
> 
> Which is why I doubt they will ever make a game that satisfies all of us.




I've had different experiences in different campaigns - I remember one 3.5e PBEM where my 5th level Fighter in non-magical studded leather, power-attacking with a mundane greatsword, was the most powerful PC in the group. But I've also played a 5th level Fighter in a Midnight 3e/d20 game where the Channeler (spellcaster) PC totally, totally dominated all the non-casters, and just laughed at me.


----------



## Crothian (May 13, 2012)

I still have no idea what the BMX Bandit is and I'm not sure I care about that.

I do know that with a good group these problems don't manifest as often as without a good group.  As a DM I feel I can manage the issues of casters verse non casters.  Casters are great when they are prepared and have the proper spells ready and items.  But the second encounter of the day they are more limited and by the 10th they can be in real trouble.  But the non caster is still using his awesome skills and combat ability.


----------



## Elf Witch (May 14, 2012)

MichaelSomething said:


> The system works fine if everyone in the group (DM included) has a good social contract and similar levels of system mastery.  While house rules and such can alter a game greatly; the idea is that even when you follow the rules to the letter, the wizards will render the fighter impotent.  It really occurs only above level 12 or so though (IMO).
> 
> If improved evasion can stop a magic user, then that magic user sucks
> A real magic user would have spells that target will, reflex, touch AC, and a whole bunch of other options.




Maybe this is true except for the system mastery. I have played with many a newbie and casual player who didn't have system mastery and the game didn't have the issue people seem to post about.

In 30 years of playing I have never once seen the fighter rendered impotent by a wizard. 

I have seen fighters do a tremendous deal of damage while going toe to toe with a BBEG. Now maybe their damage does not equal the out put of a wizard who has the ability to get all his area effect spells off. And a DM worth his salt knows how to set things up so that everyone gets a chance to shine during combat.

You know I have one rule in my game don't be a jerk. This is a game about being a team and working together if you are not going to do that then no rule system will ever work because rules can't prevent jerks behaving badly at the table.


----------



## Elf Witch (May 14, 2012)

Plane Sailing said:


> Speaking as a moderator I'd be happy to never see a 'BMX bandit vs Angel Summoner' comparison used in a D&D thread ever again.
> 
> Why?
> 
> ...




When I read posts that use this trope as well as the other pithy ones it makes me grind my teeth. 

Sometimes I will post but a lot of times I feel why bother the person using this is not interested in any form of discussion he just looking validation that he is right.


----------



## Elf Witch (May 14, 2012)

S'mon said:


> I've had different experiences in different campaigns - I remember one 3.5e PBEM where my 5th level Fighter in non-magical studded leather, power-attacking with a mundane greatsword, was the most powerful PC in the group. But I've also played a 5th level Fighter in a Midnight 3e/d20 game where the Channeler (spellcaster) PC totally, totally dominated all the non-casters, and just laughed at me.




The only time I ever felt over shadowed was in a game that the DM was trying to run as low magic. So none of us had any magic items to speak of. It started breaking down at higher levels because the druid and paladin were able to use spells that buffed them and gave them magic weapons where the mundane characters did not. The DM didn't adjust the CR to reflect that no one mundane had an AC over 18. 

This showed to me if you want a low magic game you have to limit the magic users in some way. 

I have played a high level monk who ate enemy magic users for breakfast. I have played a 15 level fighter who critted on a 15 had a +4 to confirm the crit and just plowed through the bad guys. It was great. I never felt that the wizard was better than me or outshone me. Yeah the wizard could wield fearsome powers if he was prepared. But he didn't have the AC or the hit points to get up in the face of the BBEG. 

I also knew that I was one of the reason the wizard and the other squishy PCs were alive. Part of playing the fighter it to play the meat shield and body guard of the weaker characters. If that bugs you don't play a fighter.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (May 14, 2012)

Greg K said:


> A lot of what you described sounds like issues with  a) the DM not doing his "job" of controlling what comes in play at the table and fixing inequities that arise



so that is my fault in 2 of those exampler (azrathel show and bomdiggity swordsman were both me DMING)

what do you suggest I do?



> In the first instance, he would not have been allowed the ToB feat in my game (well, I don't allow the book anyway) and, if the feat allowing the eldritch blast to be channeled was causing problems, it would have been disallowed as well.



 ok, well we liked and used the book, but I should have disallowed one character from useing it, wow that would go over so well. Oh and then take away a level 1 spell from a class... becuse that is the DMs job, to go over every build, every feat, every spell 1 on 1, and not only judge them on there own, but then to judge X PC can take it but Y PC can not 

        please, Pretty please tell me I am miss reading your intent, becuse to me it sound like you think the DM should pretty much write there own rules, and rewrite them every time something comes up...

        And what would you do, tell paul to trade out his most used power, and his 2 most used feats... then what?




> and b)the player not thinking about others at the table. Just because something can be thought of or allowed does not mean it is a good idea to allow it in practice.



Yes, but every concept and every viarable could change it... inless the game is balanced to start.



> Good friend or not, Paul's characters would not have flied in my campaigns.  Unlike a video game, as a DM, I can say, "No!".



 Yes, but how may players are going to play in a game that you disallow something for one player but not another...




> Optional things like  divine metamagic, night sticks, and several other  things would have been off limits.  Ruining other people's concepts, that is not going to fly either.



so the base of your argument is if you ignore the rules that are broken then there are no broken rules?

"If you dont count my 3 car accadents then I have a perfect driveing record"

"If you don't count the time I got fired for stealing fromt he register, then I have never been fired"


----------



## Elf Witch (May 14, 2012)

GMforPowergamers said:


> so that is my fault in 2 of those exampler (azrathel show and bomdiggity swordsman were both me DMING)
> 
> what do you suggest I do?
> 
> ...




Well as DM if one or two players are overshadowing the others and you can't balance the encounters to give everyone a chance to shine then you need to talk to the players on how to fix the issue.

One way is for the players  over shining everyone else is to scale back or change their characters or bring the other characters up to the level of the one that are strong.

It is everybody job to make sure the game is fun for everyone. 

I don't believe they will ever make a perfectly balanced game there will always be players who will know how too max the living daylights out of a concept. 

I don't understand some of the issues you have for example the warlock using one of his invocations to channel his blast through his weapon. It is a cool thing but it does not break the game he still has to hit and now it is a full melee attack not a touch attack.  And since his BAB and HP are not as good as the fighter the fighter should be hitting more and being able to stay in the front in melee longer. 

I have noticed that sometimes issues arise because DMs don't understand the rules. A DM I played with made a mistake that allowed the warlock to take a feat that let him fire two separate blasts a round. The feat was designed for arrows not magic and yes it was broken. I finally convinced the DM that the feat was not meant to be used for magic.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 14, 2012)

> so that is my fault in 2 of those exampler (azrathel show and bomdiggity swordsman were both me DMING)




Not entirely- a good portion of the problem can be laid at the feet of the game designers who didn't realize that certain combinations of spells, classes, feats, etc. were MUCH more powerful than others...ESPECIALLY spells.

And as the game progressed, they did nothing to correct this.  Instead, it is arguable that they simply made it worse.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (May 14, 2012)

Elf Witch said:


> Well as DM if one or two players are overshadowing the others and you can't balance the encounters to give everyone a chance to shine then you need to talk to the players on how to fix the issue.



 yea and it almost always ends the same way... and not a great answer. the 100% better answer is for it not to come up as often.



> It is everybody job to make sure the game is fun for everyone.



completly agree.



> I don't believe they will ever make a perfectly balanced game there will always be players who will know how too max the living daylights out of a concept.



 100% agree, however there is no reason to not try... atleast if you try you can fix obviusly problems.



> I don't understand some of the issues you have for example the warlock using one of his invocations to channel his blast through his weapon.



 the problem was that he was within 2 or 3 pt to hit, and more then tripple the damage, and that was ontop of 5 or 6 other tricks he could pull. the other character (the one that was supposed to be the better swordsman did not have other things



> It is a cool thing but it does not break the game he still has to hit and now it is a full melee attack not a touch attack.  And since his BAB and HP are not as good as the fighter the fighter should be hitting more and being able to stay in the front in melee longer.




D8's compair to D10's with the same Con score, the hp were close enough. I belive they were at level 7 or 8  the warlock had more hp, and in the early teens the warlock was within 6 or 7 hp of the fighter.

the to hit was fighter and rouge, so even at level 20 it is only 5pts, not much.



> I have noticed that sometimes issues arise because DMs don't understand the rules. A DM I played with made a mistake that allowed the warlock to take a feat that let him fire two separate blasts a round. The feat was designed for arrows not magic and yes it was broken. I finally convinced the DM that the feat was not meant to be used for magic.




I have made my fair share of mistakes, empowering magic missles, and letting items stack that should not... heck I could fill pages with mistakes, I choose very carfully the three, being one player NOT being a jerk, no hombrew rules, and no real rules mistakes...


----------



## prosfilaes (May 14, 2012)

S'mon said:


> IMO it's only an issue in 3e (and derivatives of 3e). Fighter types stood up well vs M-Us in my 1e-2e AD&D games, at any level. Admittedly no one played single-class Thieves.




Whereas the reports I have from someone who ran through the original Isle of the Ape in 2e indicated that the MU completely dominated the fighter at that level.


----------



## Elf Witch (May 14, 2012)

GMforPowergamers said:


> yea and it almost always ends the same way... and not a great answer. the 100% better answer is for it not to come up as often.
> 
> 
> completly agree.
> ...




I wish for a balanced game that does it in a way not to make all the classes boring and homogenized and lets hope 5E can do this.

I will agree that of all the classes fighters got the short end of the stick and they need to be fixed. When it comes to swinging a sword on one should do it as well as a fighter.

Though if you are faced with an unbalanced game you can only try and fix it. I would have maybe tried to change things by house ruling that fighters get a D12 for hit points and trying to figure out to make him better at what he does. 

It is not an easy situation to be in but sometimes all you can do is try and fix if a player gets pissy over the idea of giving up something to make the game more balanced they need to get over it. This is not supposed to be a game of shining stars and henchmen.  

When I DM I talk to my players to get an idea of what they see their characters doing so that I can nip in the bud anything that steps on another players feet. If I had a player who wanted to be the greatest swordsmen alive and chose fighter as the route to do it. I would house rule that someone playing a warlock couldn't use the invocation of channeling their blast through their weapon. That is just an example. 

DMs sometimes have to play bad guy and say no to things to keep the game fun for everyone. 

All DMs make mistakes and lets things in the game that prove to be really game breaking the only way I have found to fix that is to be upfront with the players and tell them so and work to fix it.


----------



## S'mon (May 14, 2012)

prosfilaes said:


> Whereas the reports I have from someone who ran through the original Isle of the Ape in 2e indicated that the MU completely dominated the fighter at that level.




I find that surprising, but I was running 1e, not 2e.  1e especially with Unearthed Arcana is pretty Fighter-friendly - weapon spec, Cavalier sub class, Rangers et al. And Isle of the Ape is written for 1e with UA, not for 2e.  2e had some overpowered Wizard spells, notably Stoneskin, and de-powered Fighters.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (May 14, 2012)

S'mon said:


> I find that surprising, but I was running 1e, not 2e.  1e especially with Unearthed Arcana is pretty Fighter-friendly - weapon spec, Cavalier sub class, Rangers et al. And Isle of the Ape is written for 1e with UA, not for 2e.  2e had some overpowered Wizard spells, notably Stoneskin, and de-powered Fighters.




to this day I have a player who wont let the phrase "Pink, thats one off my stone skin" die...

The worst I ever saw was a 2e game where the invisable ranger/theif with an artafact ment to kill dragons and magic users who had chosen enemy dragon, a x5 backstab, oil of impact, and some sorta ring that added d6's to melee damage by useing charges back stab the dragon for over 400pt of damage, and the DM said "How many attacks was that?" "Two, why?" "Well then pink thats too off my stone skin"


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (May 14, 2012)

Greg K said:


> A lot of what you described sounds like issues with  a) the DM not doing his "job" of controlling what comes in play at the table and fixing inequities that arise




Some of us do not like that "job." Policing the infinite combinations of an open multiclassing system with feats, spells, and magic items is not something I consider fun.



Greg K said:


> and b)the player not thinking about others at the table.




Sometimes it's not the player feeling overshadowed that is the problem. I have many players happy to play their 'BMX Bandits' just like Dannyalcatraz. The problem was on my end. The gap between the characters was too large to properly challenge everyone. Challenging for some was a cakewalk for the rest, while a challenge for those was a death sentence to the others. Could I have had split opposition to challenge each? Sure, but that wouldn't be a satisfying solution to me. It would feel forced. And if I put any kind of controls on which enemies the players should fight, I'm oversteppig my bounds. And some players would then feel like I'm telling them they're limited to the kiddie rides while the big boys tackle the real challenge.



Greg K said:


> Just because something can be thought of or allowed does not mean it is a good idea to allow it in practice.  Good friend or not, Paul's characters would not have flied in my campaigns.  Unlike a video game, as a DM, I can say, "No!".  Optional things like  divine metamagic, night sticks, and several other  things would have been off limits.  Ruining other people's concepts, that is not going to fly either. In the first instance, he would not have been allowed the ToB feat in my game (well, I don't allow the book anyway) and, if the feat allowing the eldritch blast to be channeled was causing problems, it would have been disallowed as well.




I'm glad that works for you. My group likes options. We have *always* sought out new ones. 

Those presented in BECMI? No system mastery gap.
1E? No problem.
2E? Some kits were traps, but self-contained enough to police.
3E? Open multi-classing and feats _seemed_ like a great idea, but got out of hand too quick.
4E? The chaotic range of infinite variability was reigned in and is manageable. Those same players still make more powerful characters, but the gap has shrunk. But we've lost other aspects of the game that we enjoyed.
5E? I hope for a wide range of flavor and options while keeping balance in check so that a DM is not relegated to the duties of 'game balance editor.'



Elf Witch said:


> Well as DM if one or two players are overshadowing the others and you can't balance the encounters to give everyone a chance to shine then you need to talk to the players on how to fix the issue.
> 
> One way is for the players  over shining everyone else is to scale back or change their characters or bring the other characters up to the level of the one that are strong.
> 
> It is everybody job to make sure the game is fun for everyone.




This is a great goal, but in my experience doesn't work. You ask the system masters to tone down their PCs? They're no longer having fun. You ask the other players to allow the system masters to help make their character 'better?' They're no longer having fun.

I don't care if one character is stronger than another. I just want a system that puts some limits on the gap bewteen any two.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 14, 2012)

> The problem was on my end. The gap between the characters was too large to properly challenge everyone.




That IS a bona fide challenge to a DM's skill.  One way to learn how to do this is to GM some system where "balance" wasn't even on the designer's radar.  Something like RIFTS.

Even if you don't get a Vagabond and a Glitter Boy in the same group, it is highly probable thet you will get PCs of wildly different offensive & defensive capabilities. Some PCs can be taken out by a single shot from a weapon that others will experience as a spring rain.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (May 14, 2012)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> That IS a bona fide challenge to a DM's skill.  One way to learn how to do this is to GM some system where "balance" wasn't even on the designer's radar.  Something like RIFTS.
> 
> Even if you don't get a Vagabond and a Glitter Boy in the same group, it is highly probable thet you will get PCs of wildly different offensive & defensive capabilities. Some PCs can be taken out by a single shot from a weapon that others will experience as a spring rain.




No thank you. I played a TMNT-style PC in the same RIFTS game as a Dragon PC and found it to be my least-favorite roleplaying experience of all time. It actually illustrates my point as well.

The GM tried to do a 'good job' by having Mega Damage tanks for the Dragon PC to fight and squads of mooks for the rest of us to fight. OK, I recognized quickly that I was intended to ride the 'kiddie rides' and fight the mooks, no problem, let's have fun.

Then the Dragon took a turn to breathe on the mooks, leaving us to watch her fight tanks. I tried everything I could to still contribute at that point. I climbed onto a tank and tried forcing my way in. Nope. I tried tricking the tank crew into coming out to fight me. Nope. At that point I gave up and joined those who'd already given up on the sidelines.

Did the GM do anything wrong? Should he have told the dragon player not to fight the mooks? IMO, that would have been overstepping his bounds, railroading the player into only facing opposition he desgned for her. It would have also felt more artificial than it already did to me.

Did the dragon player do anything wrong? Social-contract-wise maybe. Again, it would seem artificial to me if she didn't play her character to the best of its abilities. At least with my character it was easy to justify in-game why he only attacked who he was supposed to becasue it was obvious to him that punching a tank was futile.

In D&D this problem is worse, because unless you are throwing dragons or the tarrasque at the powerful people and sending squads of orcs at the rest, it isn't as clear as tanks vs. mooks. Even an orc could be low-level fodder or an epic warrior.

EDIT: I realized another way the RIFTS example illustrates what I'm looking for.

_If_ I were to run RIFTS I would restrict it from the start as All-Mega-Damage or No-Mega-Damage from the start. These are big switches to turn on/off, similar to 2E kits. My non-system-mastery players in 2E could realize a kit sucks through play and ask for a change. And I'm cool with that. The same people in 3E could not navigate the choices to build anything close to the system masters and didn't want others making their characters for them. I don't mind cleaning things up in a game if they come in big chunks, but all the tiny little pieces? Never again.


----------



## Dausuul (May 14, 2012)

rkwoodard said:


> In My Opinion. It was just that any game that ran like those videos, would have to have a lot of the blame on the DM, not the system.




Or any game that did _not_ run like those videos, deserved a lot of credit to the DM for overcoming the system. Or it just didn't come up because the caster players made blaster wizards and healbot clerics and never thought, "You know, _glitterdust_ totally owned that encounter with the orcs. Maybe I'll prep another one today... Dang. This spell owns _every_ encounter. It's crazy good. Why am I wasting a slot on _Melf's acid arrow_ again? I wonder if there are other spells like this. I think I'll get Spell Focus: Conjuration next level."

(Although, to be fair, _glitterdust_ was in a class by itself until you got to really high levels or busted out the splatbooks. When you see somebody casting a +4 Heightened _glitterdust_ in preference to actual 6th-level spells, it's a sign that there might be a problem...)

I have experienced Angel Summoner/BMX Bandit problems multiple times in the past. Usually it was unintentional; someone made a character and didn't realized how much it would suck or rock relative to the rest of the party. Once the issue became apparent, the DM and players would work out a solution, but that doesn't change the fact that somebody had to step in and compensate for the shortcomings of the game.



rkwoodard said:


> I have no doubt that there is problems at higher levels, it is just that 10-12 has always been my favorite range to top off the campaign and move on.




This helps, too. You _can_ make a broken caster before level 10, but 10-12 is when it starts to become apparent even if you aren't optimizing hard.


----------



## billd91 (May 14, 2012)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> That IS a bona fide challenge to a DM's skill.  One way to learn how to do this is to GM some system where "balance" wasn't even on the designer's radar.  Something like RIFTS.
> 
> Even if you don't get a Vagabond and a Glitter Boy in the same group, it is highly probable thet you will get PCs of wildly different offensive & defensive capabilities. Some PCs can be taken out by a single shot from a weapon that others will experience as a spring rain.




Rather than Rifts, I would have recommended superhero role playing games. Even if you build the characters along similar power level lines, the highly divergent nature of the powers will exercise your ability to write or run scenarios for all of the PCs. I ran lots of V&V in my salad days. Randomly generated powers led to some very diverse character abilities!


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (May 14, 2012)

billd91 said:


> Rather than Rifts, I would have recommended superhero role playing games. Even if you build the characters along similar power level lines, the highly divergent nature of the powers will exercise your ability to write or run scenarios for all of the PCs. I ran lots of V&V in my salad days. Randomly generated powers led to some very diverse character abilities!




While I do find your advice to be great, IMO it does not address this particular issue.

I've run superhero RPGs. Even in D&D I have to contend with challenging characters of various skills for all kinds of encounters. I've got no problem doing this. One edition became a problem to manage because I couldn't challenge one person in their area of expertise without either another character stepping in to do it better or overchallenging others in the group. It really had nothing to do with the variety of abilities.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 14, 2012)

I have to agree with billd91: a supers group with a bunch of "kryptonians" and one "batman" type- all the same "level"- fighting an alien invasion will have challenge issues.  The quasi batman may be confined to vehicles to protect him from the ravsges of hard vacuum and the invaders' weapons while the other PCs act like sentient cannonballs, flying though alien vessels and shrugging off thë effects of their defenses and weapons alike.

Its the same issue, functionally' as RIFTS utter lack of balance or high-level D&D.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (May 14, 2012)

I play and run rifts, and Ninja's and superspies, and Super hero's unlimited. 

runining into an MDC wall doesn't make me a better DM (although I think I am a damn good one) it just makes me work harder. When I was 18 that was fine, when I worked at sears ok, now adays I have alot less time, I want more from my games


----------



## haakon1 (May 14, 2012)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I find ways to contribute and make my own fun.




Agreed.  I also find ways to kill things and take their stuff.

If your fighter-type can't keep up with spellcaster types, there's something wrong.  Build, equipment, use of the character?

My guess is the complaining is mostly from people who don't play fighter-types, don't see the appeal of them, and haven't seen/recognized one being played effectively.

When I was playing 3e with a paladin, the DM used to complain that by around 7th level I was hitting at least once every round and doing like 15 hp per average hit, plus had great saves and was immune to a fair amount of stuff (disease, fear, etc.)  I don't think I was really overpowered, but I wasn't in anyone's shadow, either.

If I played him defensively, or hiding in the back to avoid blows like a wizard, yes, he wouldn't have been effective -- and I would have been bored.

For what it's worth, my favorite classes are:
- Paladin
- Fighter
- Cleric

That's true for both AD&D and 3e.  For 4e, I've only played a paladin, and found it a yawn fest because he feels more boxed into the Chekov role of damage sponge until he's knocked out, rather than big bad  with a big sword!

Rolling for the heck of it . . . rolled 14+7 base attack +4 Str + 1 magic sword + 1 Weapon Focus = 27 to hit.

Damage: 1d10 Longsword +1 for magic sword +1d6 holy  = see below.

Don't even need to smite evil or Power Attack.


----------



## Corathon (May 14, 2012)

prosfilaes said:


> Whereas the reports I have from someone who ran through the original Isle of the Ape in 2e indicated that the MU completely dominated the fighter at that level.




I'm currently running a 1st edition game (and have been for years). There are two groups, one at levels 6-10, the other at levels 11-16.  At level 6-10 the thief has still managed to make himself pretty useful. In the last session (2 days ago) the cleric found a trap with a spell, but the thief figured out the trap and disarmed it.

At up to 16th level the fighters still seem pretty damned useful also.


----------



## the Jester (May 14, 2012)

The reason the BMXBvsAS comparison gets trotted out so much is because it's both a valid concern and an accurate assessment of _some games._

Do all games suffer this problem? No. Is the level of the problem vastly different in 3e than it is in 1e? Absolutely. 

But the problem _does_ exist for some groups, and it's a valid issue worthy of discussion- and fixing.


----------



## S'mon (May 14, 2012)

haakon1 said:


> When I was playing 3e with a paladin, the DM used to complain that by around 7th level I was hitting at least once every round and doing like 15 hp per average hit, plus had great saves and was immune to a fair amount of stuff (disease, fear, etc.)




But a 7th level 3.5e Cleric or (esp) Druid can have at least as good saves, do far more damage, and has a bunch more other powers, too.  15 damage is not much in 3.5e; power attack with 2hw should reliably do more than that.

It's when you hit double figures that the power disparity between similarly min-maxed PCs gets really ridiculous, but even in the 5th-9th range a min-maxed Wiz Clr or Drd can massively outpower a non-min-maxed non-caster. And IME it's the powergamers who choose the more powerful classes, the casual players who play non-casters in 3e, so this is a common occurrence.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (May 14, 2012)

haakon1 said:


> My guess is the complaining is mostly from people who don't play fighter-types, don't see the appeal of them, and haven't seen/recognized one being played effectively.




Not in my case. My biggest complaint is as DM, not a player. The complaint being that I cannot adequately challenge my group of players using the options we like in 3E. The gap was too large between system masters and others, not a gap between spellcasters and non-spellcasters.

As a player I often chose supposedly underpowered classes like the monk or bard. At the time I probably fell into third place out of the six in our group for system mastery. I saw the same problems arise where I either felt under-challenged or the players with less system mastery felt over-challenged.

When I decided I would no longer run 3E (about a month before 4E was announced) I asked the other players if they would run our Friday night game. No one wanted to deal with the power gap issues. It seemed our weekly game was about to end after 24 years (since no one wanted to play older editions of D&D or any other game either).

4E still rewards system mastery. Those who've mastered it in my group feel rewarded for their 'stronger' character. Those who haven't don't feel like they fall too far behind. And I've never felt like any challange was too over- or underpowered for any subset of characters within the group. And those who wouldn't pick up the reins of 3E did so in 4E. One of the ones that did had never run D&D before 4E.

But like I said above, I do believe we lost some important aspects of D&D in the move to 4E. I would love for 5E to maintain a good balance while at the same time including those lost aspects. And I plan to tell Wizards that every time I have the opportunity to give feedback.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (May 14, 2012)

I'd have a lot more sympathy for cutting out BMX references (despite its uses) if it was part of a concerted push to remove things such as, "X is like a video game."  Can we trade?


----------



## Elf Witch (May 14, 2012)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> Some of us do not like that "job." Policing the infinite combinations of an open multiclassing system with feats, spells, and magic items is not something I consider fun.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I have yet to see a perfectly balanced system and that includes non DnD games.

There are three issues that I see one is a game may start out pretty closely balanced but as new splats come out the game slowly starts having power gaps.  

The only cure for this is to either say no to them core only or be willing to police them and adjust them if there is a problem.

Then there is the fact that once a game is in play there are some really smart people who figure out how to maximize things go onto any board with a chr-ops and you see it. 

Again you have a choice you can whine on message boards that game is broken or as DM you can take control and start saying no to certain combos.

The third is there will always be people who have system mastery and players who are not interested. Now if you end up with a situation where those who have it are walking all over those who don't and they can't have fun with a weaker character and the non system mastery folks can't have fun then there is only one logical choice and that is don't play together.

I know a lot of people don't want to hear this but sometimes certain play styles don't work together. If the issue comes that no matter what you do half your table is going to be unhappy then right there is a clue that maybe this group should either play something else or split into separate groups.


----------



## SkidAce (May 15, 2012)

the Jester said:


> The reason the BMXBvsAS comparison gets trotted out so much is because it's both a valid concern and an accurate assessment of _some games._
> 
> Do all games suffer this problem? No. Is the level of the problem vastly different in 3e than it is in 1e? Absolutely.
> 
> But the problem _does_ exist for some groups, and it's a valid issue worthy of discussion- and fixing.




I totally agree with this.

My only..small...concern is they break something going to far the other way.  Which will affect those that didn't have the problem adversely.


----------



## khantroll (May 15, 2012)

It's worthy of discussion if it's a problem for some of our number, but I think we need to change the manner in which we discuss it. Invariably, those who feel it's a glitch blame the system, while those of us who don't have that problem feel that it must be something particular to that group. The truth lies somewhere in the middle. 

Most RPG's that allow for advancement allow for power gaming. That isn't likely to change. But how we deal with and anticipate it, and how we share that information with others, can change. 

My crew are a bunch of power gamers. Half of us are IT consultants, the other half are soldiers of some sort; we all make a living by rules and strategy of a sort, so it is no wonder that we tend to overbuild our characters. We have one rule: no dragons for players. That means nothing that gets a dragon subtype or turns you into a dragon or a half-dragon. 

The reason for this: Dragon Magic = broken. End of story. This chafes certain of our number, but it's fair. No one gets to use it, and I make very sparing use of it as DM. 

We allow all books from major publishers, applied in any way you'd like. I get fiat, but I rarely enforce it. There may be other campaign specific restrictions on ECL, etc, but those vary. 

I mention all of this because, with all of the above, you'd think that we'd constantly run into this problem, or at the very least, it'd be Monty Haul. It's not. My wizard and cleric players are very good, and my martial class players are very good, and always make themselves useful. In fact, more often then not, they save the day through quick thinking or because they don't rely pieces of magic gear or a spellbook. 

Good example: Epic level campaign (25th level IRC). The mission: break into extra-dimensional prison to free one of their number. Party make up: Assassin, Arcane Archer, Fighter, Werepanther Ranger. Opposition:  powerful angels a vast array of powers, most notably dispel magic and a power called "Nail to the Sky", which is self explanatory. The day is won by the assassin and the fighter. The assassin, though pinned to the sky, manages to get off multiple hits with a cross bow capable of penetrating the angel's DR while the mounted fighter manages to harry and trip the angels. The Arcane Archer got off a few good hits, and the Werepanther got stomped. 

Another example: 3 (bloodied) 2nd Level PCs (sorcerer, alchemist, cleric) and 3 (bloodied) 1st level PCs (fighter, fighter, rogue). Opposition: 4 2nd level gnome fighters, 4 2nd level gnome rogues. Action: Sorcerer provides artillery, while the fighters attack the nearest combatants. The rogue follows the fighters, sneak attacking and helping to finish them off. The cleric plays buff/healing at this level, as lower level summoning spells wouldn't make that much of a difference. They won.

 I share these examples to show that Angel Summoners only overshadow others if they are allowed to by the BMX Bandit and the DM. Most games have ways of fixing it. There is no reason the BMX Bandit can't work faster or better then the Angel Summoner, other then the BMX Bandit is discouraged. 

Several people said earlier that they didn't like the job of preparing for these kinds of things...well, I'm not sure what to say to that. You don't have to know everything about every player's character, and purposely build to mitigate facets of those characters every time. But, you do have to plan for your players in general. If that's what you object to...well, I got nothing. 

I do, however, have play tips for anyone that is interesting in avoiding this sort of thing: 

1.) Help Your Players
If you see some one or a group of some one's who is getting left behind, talk to him, find a way to help their tactics and hone their characters. If you are fighting a dragon, and the Angel Summoner is summoning angels, and your BMX Bandit is kicking the dragon four 1d4 points of damage, that's the player or (more rarely) the character. The BMX bandit could have run driven his bike right up the dragon's tail, over his head, and put out it's eyes. Or, he could have pulled a Star Wars and tied the thing's legs. Yeah, he could try to survive while the waits for the angels to show up, but beating the dragon before they do is more fun. 

2.) Multiple Small Encounters
Multiple small encounters with no place to rest for 8 hours are a lot harder on spellcasters then they are on martial characters. Swords rarely run out of charges. You can take down 14th level spell caster with scaling encounters of orcs and kobolds between him and the end the adventure. 

3.) Tactics
One of the hardest things to implement, but the most useful. Tucker's kobolds are really great equalizers. Further remember that anything they can do you can do better. He wants to summon Angels? Fiends make great adversaries for Angels. Or better yet, dismissal traps or similar impediments will nerf him and let the BMX bandit shine.

4.) Don't be afraid to Nerf. 
If you have a player who really is being unfair to his fellow players, don't be afraid to covertly nerf him. Do it sneakily, quietly, but build in things that either take away his mojo or force him to try new tactics. He'll get the memo eventually, and you can make it like it was his idea all along. 

5.) Size your adventure appropriately. 
I put this here  because it doesn't fit anywhere else.  If you a 10th level party, and you see a disparity between the casters and the martial players, don't play a 10th level adventure; play 11th or 12. This will force the caster to work harder, and eventually trigger the same effect as Tip 2.


This is what I do, at any rate, and it seems to work. As usual, you mileage may vary. 


Now that I have given my 2 cents on the purpose of the meme, to the OP I say this:

Yes, please, I'd love to stop this goofy meme. It's founded on exaggeration and just gives people a crutch to use when complaining about this problem. 

Although, I do kinda want to play a rogue with mechanical horse right now....


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 15, 2012)

> I have yet to see a perfectly balanced system and that includes non DnD games.




My favorite system- HERO- is point based.  Each PC in the party starts off with the same point total.  However, system mastery means that player choices about what particular powers a PC has- and how limited they are- can make for a party with a great detective adventuring alongside a planet-busting incorporeal being.


----------



## haakon1 (May 15, 2012)

S'mon said:


> But a 7th level 3.5e Cleric or (esp) Druid can have at least as good saves, do far more damage, and has a bunch more other powers, too.  15 damage is not much in 3.5e; power attack with 2hw should reliably do more than that.
> 
> It's when you hit double figures that the power disparity between similarly min-maxed PCs gets really ridiculous, but even in the 5th-9th range a min-maxed Wiz Clr or Drd can massively outpower a non-min-maxed non-caster. And IME it's the powergamers who choose the more powerful classes, the casual players who play non-casters in 3e, so this is a common occurrence.




We really never noticed a difference.

I can speculate on a number of areas where My Mileage my vary from yours:
-- All Old Schoolers.  About 90% of the folks I played with were avid AD&D players back in the day.  About 70% of us are more into Tolkien than modern fantasy.

-- We don't PvP, and we think about group success, not grudging who is better in each scene.  If you grow up without people telling you to care about "balance", and you're a team player, why the heck should you care?

-- Duels - 1-on-1 fights -- are rare, and they're almost always fighter-type versus fighter-type.  The only Fighter v. caster 1:1 fight I can recall was my Paladin versus the boss sorcerer in the Standing Stones.  The sorcerer went down in 2 rounds, I think . . . I got init, made my save on the one spell he cast, and Smited the Evil out of his sorry hide whatever the max # of times was, and just wiped the floor with him.

-- I've never played high levels.  AD&D was up to maybe 13, somewhere in that range.  3.5e was the same -- I think one campaign made 15th, but it got tedious by then.  4e we've only gotten to 5th, I think, so far . . . we don't play the same.  The "sweet spot" is 1st-13th, I think.

-- Most clerics I've seen were healers and buffers.  Medics in military terms, maybe coachs in football terms.

-- Most wizards I've seen were blasters.  Artillery in military terms, something between special teams, kickers, and quarterback in football terms.

-- Most fighter-types were "charge the enemy and kill-kill-kill" types.  Often the party leader.  They were not just "damage sponge" BMX Bandits -- they were infantry or tanks in the sense of an armored spreadhead that smashes its way through the enemy.  "Tank" as a synonym for "Chekov" -- the guy who always gets knocked out -- makes no sense to me.   In football terms, the DEFENSIVE linemen -- people who rush in and put a hurt on the enemy quarterback.  Not offensive lineman -- people who get run into for a living.

-- Most thief-types were combat engineers crossed with assassins -- get us, and kill the guards.  Special teams from a football perspective, I guess.


----------



## haakon1 (May 15, 2012)

Elf Witch said:


> there will always be people who have system mastery and players who are not interested. Now if you end up with a situation where those who have it are walking all over those who don't and they can't have fun with a weaker character and the non system mastery folks can't have fun then there is only one logical choice and that is don't play together.
> 
> I know a lot of people don't want to hear this but sometimes certain play styles don't work together. If the issue comes that no matter what you do half your table is going to be unhappy then right there is a clue that maybe this group should either play something else or split into separate groups.




This makes a lot of sense to me.

The alternative, of course, is to suck it up and play anyhow to support and hang out with your gaming friends, keeping your whining at the table to a minimum and then complaining over here on ENworld.

That's what I do about the game I'm a player in (but don't DM), whose rules I don't like . . . I still like the people, and I learn stuff from them for the games I DO like (that I run).

Diversity of opinion on what is good at the gaming table isn't necessarily a bad thing . . . complaining about it when you don't get your way is.


----------



## haakon1 (May 15, 2012)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> My favorite system- HERO- is point based.  Each PC in the party starts off with the same point total.  However, system mastery means that player choices about what particular powers a PC has- and how limited they are- can make for a party with a great detective adventuring alongside a planet-busting incorporeal being.




I'd rather play Magnum, PI than Superman anyhow.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (May 15, 2012)

Elf Witch said:


> I have yet to see a perfectly balanced system and that includes non DnD games.




Luckily I never asked for a "perfectly balanced system." I just want one that _reduces_ gaps in power levels amongst characters. BECMI, 1E, 2E, and 4E D&D all did this well enough. Shadowrun, Earthdawn, Witch Hunter and countless other systems did this well enough also.



Elf Witch said:


> There are three issues that I see one is a game may start out pretty closely balanced but as new splats come out the game slowly starts having power gaps.




I think those power gaps will exist from day one and that's OK. It's when options keep rolling out and the base system cannot handle combos that cause an ever-widening gap that I take issue.  



Elf Witch said:


> The only cure for this is to either say no to them core only or be willing to police them and adjust them if there is a problem.




Far from "the _only_ cure." The only cure _you_ find acceptable maybe. I acknowledge it is a cure, but not one that meets my groups desires for a fun game.



Elf Witch said:


> Again you have a choice you can whine on message boards that game is broken or as DM you can take control and start saying no to certain combos.




Thank you for insinuating that I'm whining about the problem. As DM I did take control. I took control by saying "I will *never* run 3E again. Who wants to take the reins?" The fact that the other 5 people I gamed with wouldn't take on DMing (when 2 of them had DMed extensively before), shows that we all had the same issue based on our desires for a fun game.



Elf Witch said:


> The third is there will always be people who have system mastery and players who are not interested. Now if you end up with a situation where those who have it are walking all over those who don't and they can't have fun with a weaker character and the non system mastery folks can't have fun then there is only one logical choice and that is don't play together.




We almost didn't. We almost quit gaming altogether because we couldn't find a replacement game to our liking. The weekend before 4E was announced I had decided I was going to tell the group we were done. The hopes of a better system when the announcement was made changed my mind and I continued to run a game I didn't like anymore just to keep us together long enough to try 4E. It wasn't an easy decision as you try to make it sound, mainly because we aren't a bunch of gamers that play D&D, we are a long-time group of friends that enjoy getting together over a game. I'd say we'd still hang out without the weekly structure of a game, but I have many great friends that I rarely see on a regular basis because they no longer game with us.



Elf Witch said:


> I know a lot of people don't want to hear this but sometimes certain play styles don't work together. If the issue comes that no matter what you do half your table is going to be unhappy then right there is a clue that maybe this group should either play something else or split into separate groups.




The group got along in different playstyles for many, many years. 29 years total, with the last year or two of 3E becoming a problem still means over 25 years of different playstyles working together in games that didn't cause as great a divide as the one that finally caused a problem.

I acknowledge that this is not a problem for all groups, but to dismiss someone who doesn't share your experiences is just rude.


----------



## Janx (May 15, 2012)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> BMX Bandit and Angel Summoner - Mitchell & Webb - YouTube




that was funny, but up until this thread, I'd never heard of it.

I think the OP has spent too much time in the wrong forums.


----------



## billd91 (May 15, 2012)

Janx said:


> that was funny, but up until this thread, I'd never heard of it.
> 
> I think the OP has spent too much time in the wrong forums.




Or you've spent too little. It comes up here a lot.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 15, 2012)

I learned about it here first as well.


----------



## Elf Witch (May 15, 2012)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> My favorite system- HERO- is point based.  Each PC in the party starts off with the same point total.  However, system mastery means that player choices about what particular powers a PC has- and how limited they are- can make for a party with a great detective adventuring alongside a planet-busting incorporeal being.




I have played both Hero and Shadowrun and watched a player with system mastery build a character that was superior to everyone else.

In Shadowrun the troll never took a dangerous hit and rarely missed. I didn't care because my mage got to do cool things. The player playing the other street sam used to complain about it and felt over shadowed. They kept the character because he was the team leader and had great role playing opportunities.

In our Hero game the planet buster ran rough shod over the rest of us. The GM was partly at fault because he catered to the guy and the guy was a spot light hog.

The big difference was the GM in Shadowrun gave us plenty of opportunities for our characters to shine he ran all kinds of different type of encounters. The Hero GM ran encounters that only planet buster could really shine at.

DM can make or break a game by not fine tuning encounters to the players.


----------



## Elf Witch (May 15, 2012)

haakon1 said:


> This makes a lot of sense to me.
> 
> The alternative, of course, is to suck it up and play anyhow to support and hang out with your gaming friends, keeping your whining at the table to a minimum and then complaining over here on ENworld.
> 
> ...




I have played in games that were not the best simply because I was playing with friends. 

And yes I have even whined about it sometimes here on EnWorld it is a good place to release frustration. 

But there is a big difference between doing that and blaming the system for what is a table problem not a system problem. Like I said you will always have players with great system mastery who will know how to milk the system for every advantage.  The only way I see that ever going away is for the choice to be taken out of players hands. Every character is a pre gen and thus can't be tweaked. Personally I would hate a game like that.


----------



## Elf Witch (May 15, 2012)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> Luckily I never asked for a "perfectly balanced system." I just want one that _reduces_ gaps in power levels amongst characters. BECMI, 1E, 2E, and 4E D&D all did this well enough. Shadowrun, Earthdawn, Witch Hunter and countless other systems did this well enough also.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




So you don't like 3E simple don't play it. I get that a lot of people don't like it and there are other systems that work better. 

What I don't get is if you found a solution why come on and complain about an old problem. As a player and a DM who loves 3E I get really tired of the insulting Angel Summoner,  mages and Muggles dismissive posts. I have been told by people who have an issue with 3E that I don't because obliviously my players don't have system mastery or they hold back. 

None of that is true the reason we don't have an issue is because we have DMs who know the system and know how to tailor the game for the party and we have players who try and work together as a team. 

As for the gap as things keep rolling out there is a solution one that you dismissed which as DM take control of your game and say no to broken combos. Game designers are not perfect and they can't possibly anticipate everything clever gamers can come up with there are more of us then of them.

It is not the only cure you find another system but if you want to play the system that you are having an issue with then it is one of the only cures and that is to ban things that are making the game unfun.

If people want to play together and yet no one  is willing to bend a little then what you have is people wanting their cake and eating it to. Like I said the cure for that is to try and find another system or don't play together. Or I guess you could keep playing and people just deal with the fact that they are unhappy.

I am not dismissing that some people have issues with certain systems. Not all systems will work the same with every group.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (May 15, 2012)

Elf Witch said:


> But there is a big difference between doing that and blaming the system for what is a table problem not a system problem.




In your opinion, of course. I do believe the system is the problem.



Elf Witch said:


> What I don't get is if you found a solution why come on and complain about an old problem.




First, it was the topic of this thread. Second, I also recently shared my opinions in the 5E threads on the topic. I hope they can achieve both the variety I like and the balance, like 4 out of 5 editions of D&D I've enjoyed.



Elf Witch said:


> As a player and a DM who loves 3E I get really tired of the insulting Angel Summoner,  mages and Muggles dismissive posts. I have been told by people who have an issue with 3E that I don't because obliviously my players don't have system mastery or they hold back.




It could also be because you have players of relatively equal system mastery expertise, whether that is high or low. Or it could be because you are willing to police add-ons more tha others are. I'm not being dismissive of your success at making 3E work for you. I hope the 5E team can achieve a solution for me that doesn't get in the way of people who didn't experience the problem like you, just as their stated goal. 



Elf Witch said:


> None of that is true the reason we don't have an issue is because we have DMs who know the system and know how to tailor the game for the party and we have players who try and work together as a team.




The above is just as dismissive as you claim others are being towards you. You strongly insinuate that someone with the problem doesn't know the system, doesn't know how to tailor the game for their party, and has players that don't try to work together as a team.

I knew the system quite well. I designed adventures to allow all to shine for many years. And my group has table rules to encourage teamwork dating back to BECMI. The solutions I came to to shrinking the power gap were similar to yours, they just didn't satisfy our needs as a group.



Elf Witch said:


> As for the gap as things keep rolling out there is a solution one that you dismissed which as DM take control of your game and say no to broken combos. Game designers are not perfect and they can't possibly anticipate everything clever gamers can come up with there are more of us then of them.




When did I dismiss it? I said it works for many people, just not for me. *I* don't consider it fun. How is that dismissive to you? I understand designers are not perfect. But 3E was the first system with open multiclassing and granular feats that allowed those broken combos to come to life. There were literally thousands of tiny switches to check. It's frustrating for some to keep finding that you next neat idea is broken too. Will the DM say yes this time? Will I be allowed to keep playing it even if he says yes once we find out how it works in play? It's fine that you are OK with these choices, we weren't.



Elf Witch said:


> It is not the only cure you find another system but if you want to play the system that you are having an issue with then it is one of the only cures and that is to ban things that are making the game unfun.




I don't disagree, but you seem heated over the fact that I discuss my experiences with coming to that choice here on the messageboards.



Elf Witch said:


> If people want to play together and yet no one  is willing to bend a little...




Except neither side was happy in 3E because it wasn't a little bend, it was alot.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (May 15, 2012)

Elf Witch said:


> What I don't get is if you found a solution why come on and complain about an old problem.




Another thing...

I don't consider this an old problem. In light of the direction 5E is headed I hope that they will truly delve into this once-again-current problem as they have promised.

You sound like you did alot of work to avoid the problem. I understand that you love the system. If the designers of 5E were to give you most of what you love about 3E without having to do the policing work to maintain balance, would you be happier?


----------



## khantroll (May 15, 2012)

While I know you were speaking to Elf Witch, Vyvyan, my answer to your question would be that I don't think they can. I don't think that you can have D&D, and offer all of the content that is part and parcel to the game, and the customization, without still forcing a level of DM control on challenge/balance. 

If they do, they take away the feel of the game. It's part of why I don't play 4e. It just doesn't feel right to me.


----------



## MarkB (May 15, 2012)

rkwoodard said:


> From what I saw:  BMX Bandit scopes out the situation devices a plan. A plan that revolves around his apparent sole physical skill (Bike Riding) and then the Angel Summoner points out that he can solve it by summoning Angels.




So basically, each member of this 'team' looks at a problem, and then devises a solution that relies entirely upon their own abilities and nobody else's?

Yeah, I think I can see where the problem is.


----------



## Fifth Element (May 15, 2012)

MarkB said:


> So basically, each member of this 'team' looks at a problem, and then devises a solution that relies entirely upon their own abilities and nobody else's?



No, basically the "party" always relies on the abilities of one member, and never the other, because the first member's abilities outstrip the second's by many degrees. There are important things that need doing (saving innocents from harm), so effectiveness wins.

In one episode, they go along with the BMX Bandit's plan for once. And it goes very well, he's almost accomplished it...and then he realizes that the Angel Summoner has simply summoned invisible angels to help, to make him feel like he's contributing. One heck of a buff spell.


----------



## innerdude (May 15, 2012)

khantroll said:


> I don't think that you can have D&D, and offer all of the content that is part and parcel to the game, and the customization, without still forcing a level of DM control on challenge/balance.
> 
> If they do, they take away the feel of the game. It's part of why I don't play 4e. It just doesn't feel right to me.




This was very much my thought process behind this thread. That there's a certain level of . . . I don't know, "crunch," or "optionality" that D&D kind of assumes, and we've been accustomed to expect it now.


----------



## Spatula (May 15, 2012)

khantroll said:


> Good example: Epic level campaign (25th level IRC). The mission: break into extra-dimensional prison to free one of their number. Party make up: Assassin, Arcane Archer, Fighter, Werepanther Ranger. Opposition:  powerful angels a vast array of powers, most notably dispel magic and a power called "Nail to the Sky", which is self explanatory. The day is won by the assassin and the fighter. The assassin, though pinned to the sky, manages to get off multiple hits with a cross bow capable of penetrating the angel's DR while the mounted fighter manages to harry and trip the angels. The Arcane Archer got off a few good hits, and the Werepanther got stomped.
> 
> Another example: 3 (bloodied) 2nd Level PCs (sorcerer, alchemist, cleric) and 3 (bloodied) 1st level PCs (fighter, fighter, rogue). Opposition: 4 2nd level gnome fighters, 4 2nd level gnome rogues. Action: Sorcerer provides artillery, while the fighters attack the nearest combatants. The rogue follows the fighters, sneak attacking and helping to finish them off. The cleric plays buff/healing at this level, as lower level summoning spells wouldn't make that much of a difference. They won.
> 
> I share these examples to show that Angel Summoners only overshadow others if they are allowed to by the BMX Bandit and the DM.



Your first example has no real PC spellcasters (some have spellcasting abilities, but no full-blown casters). Your second example is of 1st-2nd level PCs, which no one is claiming to have an issue with. I don't see how these examples are relevant to the discussion, which is about higher-level spellcasters overshadowing other party members.


----------



## Elf Witch (May 16, 2012)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> In your opinion, of course. I do believe the system is the problem.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I need to apologize for coming off a as strongly as I have. I was in a foul mood partly because of stress at home and partly because off other threads that have made me have to bite my tongue.

This subject has made me kind of defensive because a lot of times my not having an issue with magic level becomes the well you don't run high levels (I do), your players must not have good system mastery (some do some don't) it feels like I am being told well that some how you not having an issue makes you an exception.

First of I don't think I am if I was then I doubt Pathfinder which didn't change the magic that much would not be doing as well as it does.  

Do I think a lot of people have an issue with it, well from reading these posts yes I do. 

For you the issue of having to take so much time dealing with the caster is one you would rather not have to deal with fair enough. For me it is not an issue because I don't think it really adds to my already burdensome prep time. And yes I freely admit that as you level in 3E prep times becomes a lot more work. 

As a DM I don't mind a game where the DM has to take more control and say no about something not if it gives a lot of options to the players. I found it is one of the trade offs. A game with less options can't be broke as bad as a game with more options.

I played 4E for three levels and I hated it yes I could see that the characters were closer balanced and from what friends have told me higher level play is easier to run. But for all that I didn't enjoy the play experience at all. For me 4E didn't fix the things I would have liked to see fixed about 3E. 

I know I came across really rude and I am truly sorry for that. Please accept my apology for letting my frustrations with this topic over whelm my manners. 

We all have a horse in the race. I know fans are worried they may go to far backwards and 3E fans like me are worried they are going to go to far towards the 4E model.


----------



## Elf Witch (May 16, 2012)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> Another thing...
> 
> I don't consider this an old problem. In light of the direction 5E is headed I hope that they will truly delve into this once-again-current problem as they have promised.
> 
> You sound like you did alot of work to avoid the problem. I understand that you love the system. If the designers of 5E were to give you most of what you love about 3E without having to do the policing work to maintain balance, would you be happier?




Yes I would I would love to see magic item creation and metamagic reigned in. And for the skills system to be over hauled and while I like AOO they need work. 

I would also like to see fighter be the best at fighting. 

And even after playing for ten years I have to look up the turn undead mechanics every time because no one seems to remember how to do it. 

So I do see a lot of room for improvement.


----------



## Greg K (May 16, 2012)

Elf Witch,
Thanks for posting this. Twice I had started writing something similar to explain my position (my computer froze the first time and the second time a friend with seminary training called to clarify questions about his religion for my class paper and, I, accidentally closed the browser rather than minimizing it.  For the most part, you pretty much covered what I wanted to say.

The following were just some things that I was going to add if I had written my response which would have included much of what you wrote. 

  When playing with some min-maxers and char ops people (doing it not just for theory, but to use in play), they are going to take the game and push it to the mechanical limits or break it. This does not mean the game is broken. Often, it means they are approaching a game in a manner that was not intended and this is a player issue  (Yes, there may be some things that are truly broken, but that is separate from approaching a game in a manner for which it may not have been designed or intended).  When supplements are added, the designers introduce new synergies that can be exploited, but the designers can't test for every combination that can be exploited

   Is it possible that someone might simply stumble upon a broken synergy that does not work? yes. However, if something is found to be broken at a table, a good player will understand if a DM needs to nix or nerf an item that is problematic for the sake of the game as a whole.  

A good example of blaming the system are found with point buy systems like Champions and M&M.  Both games are built to allow any character to be created.  The freedom means that players can abuse the tools of the system or stumble upon something that is broken for many campaigns. The designers placed responsibility on the the GMs to define the limits of their campaign and make sure the characters are appropriate. They also assume that players are going to be responsible and play nice with the tools rather than being dicks!  Even though players and the GM might not want the responsibility, it does not mean the game is broken.  The games do what the designers set out to do and that freedom to build anything requires responsibility.

3e D&D ,while not giving as much freedom as Champions or M&M,  gives more freedom than many editions of D&D. Mearls and other described 3e as a toolbox.  With so many ways to approach the game and choices of  optional material, what is broken at one table is not, necessarily, broken at another.   The 3e DMG tells the DM they are responsible for their table and  in determining what is allowed, because  the designers don't know the players at the table, the party make-up, the supplements in use and which material from those supplements are in use  (I  only read the 4e DMG n the stores and don't recall what, if any, advice it gives).  
(Note: The differences at tables is why I wrote that just because something is  created, it does not mean it is a good idea to use it (leaving aside flavor preferences for a campaign or of a given group)).


Again, not all GMs want the responsibility.  That is fine. It also poses potential  problems when it comes to the next edition. The designers can

1. Continue leaving these things for individual tables to deal with.  Min-maxers and char op people are going to continue to do what they do regardless of the math unless either all choice is removed or the DM takes steps to address the issue.  And, yes, it is possible that someone not engaging in such practice may stumble on an unexpected synergy.  Responsible players, however, will understand when the DM nerfs or nixes the offending item for the good of the game at the table as a whole.   Despite the drawbacks, this, allows for a wide variety of approaches to the game and freedom of concepts with the DM setting the limits for their campaign.  However, this is not going to please those not wanting to deal with making such corrections at an individual/group level.

2.  Tighten the math and create a game that caters to account for the min-maxers and char-ops people and raise everything to their level of expectation. The problem is that one cuts off many concepts that were viable in many other groups just not those that engage/allow the min-maxing, char Ops, or powergaming (using the term to mean people that play for powers or big numbers.  Min-maxing and Char Ops would be the tool to achieve it).

3. Tighten the math to address min/maxing and Char Ops by forcing everyone to fall within a particular range (e.g, skills bonuses tied to level, the assumption of challenge DCs scaling with level, monster attack/defense).  Again, they run the risk of mechanically cutting off options and concepts that were viable rather than problematic at many tables- possibly at both ends of the power spectrum.

4. Remove all true choice beyond race, class, spells and assigning random rolls. 

Option 1:  This will lead to some players claiming the game is broke including situations where it may come to how they approach the game or specific elements rather than the game truly being broke (which doesn't mean something might not, truly be broken.  Personally, I think there are some inherent problems, but many problems I see  mentioned I think are table problems).

Options 2 and 3:  These have the potential to lead back to one of the big complaints regarding 4e as being a slave to the math.

Option 4:  It might appeal to some players of early editions, but not the majority

I don't know how the designers will win






Elf Witch said:


> I have yet to see a perfectly balanced system and that includes non DnD games.
> 
> There are three issues that I see one is a game may start out pretty closely balanced but as new splats come out the game slowly starts having power gaps.
> 
> ...


----------



## kimble (May 16, 2012)

billd91 said:


> Rather than Rifts, I would have recommended superhero role playing games. Even if you build the characters along similar power level lines, the highly divergent nature of the powers will exercise your ability to write or run scenarios for all of the PCs. I ran lots of V&V in my salad days. Randomly generated powers led to some very diverse character abilities!




Or you could just play a superhero role playing game that allows the Superman-wanna be and the Dark Knight-like to work side by side, without having to create complicated scenarios to make both characters meaningful.
Like, I don´t know... Marvel RPG or Mutants and Masterminds? Games that are REALLY different and still can do that?
That can be done. You just need a good ruleset.

---

What I learned from this thread is that I´m a horrible GM, since I want a ruleset that I can play without a lot of house rules or GM Fiat to make it work, and a horrible player, since it´s my mistake everytime my character overshadows another, even if I´m only using some spell from the corebook.
I feel enlightened.


----------



## Deset Gled (May 16, 2012)

Apropos to none of the previous discussion, my favorite example of this phenomenon is as follows:

BMX Bandit 3.x Fighter: "See that group of 15 kobold mooks standing in a tight group about a hundred feet away?  I'll run into their midst using a surprise round, then I'll attack!  Because I took Power Attack, I should be able to kill the most powerful one with my first attack.  Then, because I took Cleave and Great Cleave, I should be able to kill every one of the mooks standing around me.  Then I'll take my 5' step to get into range of more mooks, and attack again.  Great Cleave will let me take out any others within reach.  If they stand in the right pattern, I should be able to take out a dozen of them.  Then you can swoop in behind me and clean up any leftover enemies I couldn't handle.  Isn't it great that I spent all these feats to be prepared for just this situation?"

Angel Summoner 3.x Wizard:  "Why don't I just cast Fireball?"


----------



## hafrogman (May 16, 2012)

Deset Gled said:


> Apropos to none of the previous discussion, my favorite example of this phenomenon is as follows:



To be fair, I don't really think fireball has ever been the spell most indicative of the issue people have with high-leveled wizards.  

There are lower level examples, but I've got to think the best analogy would be for the wizard to cast 'gate' and . . . um . . . summon a swarm of angels.


----------



## Imaro (May 16, 2012)

Deset Gled said:


> Apropos to none of the previous discussion, my favorite example of this phenomenon is as follows:
> 
> BMX Bandit 3.x Fighter: "See that group of 15 kobold mooks standing in a tight group about a hundred feet away? I'll run into their midst using a surprise round, then I'll attack! Because I took Power Attack, I should be able to kill the most powerful one with my first attack. Then, because I took Cleave and Great Cleave, I should be able to kill every one of the mooks standing around me. Then I'll take my 5' step to get into range of more mooks, and attack again. Great Cleave will let me take out any others within reach. If they stand in the right pattern, I should be able to take out a dozen of them. Then you can swoop in behind me and clean up any leftover enemies I couldn't handle. Isn't it great that I spent all these feats to be prepared for just this situation?"
> 
> Angel Summoner 3.x Wizard: "Why don't I just cast Fireball?"




I'm just curious... but how is this any different from 4e? The Wizard in 4e would be able to do the exact same thing to a group of kobold minions and would leave the Fighter with nothing to attack afterwards. I've actually seen this happen in 4e games. 

I'm sorry but this example seems to have alot more to do with utilizing good encounter design, and not bunching the kobolds up so that the Wizard's tactic is optimal and able to eliminate all of them. Just saying.


----------



## Doug McCrae (May 16, 2012)

Angel Summoner isn't a problem. Any good GM will give the bad guys Angel Resistance. Or set the adventure in an Anti-Angel Zone.

Also, BMX Bandit can pop a wheelie and distract the bad guys, so he's contributing.


----------



## Doug McCrae (May 16, 2012)

Fifth Element said:


> In one episode, they go along with the BMX Bandit's plan for once. And it goes very well, he's almost accomplished it...and then he realizes that the Angel Summoner has simply summoned invisible angels to help, to make him feel like he's contributing. One heck of a buff spell.



You're right, that is very much like a powerful buff spell. This is why Angel Summoner & the BMX Bandit is such a perfect example of power disparity, it has everything. I love it. I don't agree with Plane Sailing, it's great to show to people who don't understand the problem.


----------



## Fifth Element (May 16, 2012)

hafrogman said:


> To be fair, I don't really think fireball has ever been the spell most indicative of the issue people have with high-leveled wizards.
> 
> There are lower level examples, but I've got to think the best analogy would be for the wizard to cast 'gate' and . . . um . . . summon a swarm of angels.



Hah. Very good.

You're right about fireball. Fireball is never presented as a problem. Blaster wizards aren't really presented as a problem.


----------



## Fifth Element (May 16, 2012)

Doug McCrae said:


> Angel Summoner isn't a problem. Any good GM will give the bad guys Angel Resistance. Or set the adventure in an Anti-Angel Zone.
> 
> Also, BMX Bandit can pop a wheelie and distract the bad guys, so he's contributing.



This might be the greatest post I've ever seen.


----------



## TanisFrey (May 16, 2012)

rkwoodard said:


> 1) BMX Bandit apparently has the investigation/stealth/gather knowledge skills, and finds out what needs to be done.




Why cannot Angel Summer summon an army of invisible angels to go scouting??????  OOPPS BMX Bandit has just lost his only role.

The big problem with 3.5 were spells that let the mage be a better theif than the rougue (knock), or the spells that let the mage fight equal footing with a fighter (tenser transformation), or the series of spells that let the cleric be a far better fighter that the fighter (divine power/might/favor combo).

When Knock and Tenser Transformation were induced in 1st and 2ed, respective, there were other limits on wizards.  In 1st/2nd ed your known spells were limited to a number based on your intelligence score.  This made you think carefully about adding spells and keeping to the ones you know you would use.  3ed removed this, you add all spells you find to you spell book, and then make scrolls for those nitch spells like knock when you had the time/money/xp to write scrolls.


----------



## rkwoodard (May 16, 2012)

*I don't know?  why didn't he?*



TanisFrey said:


> Why cannot Angel Summer summon an army of invisible angels to go scouting??????  OOPPS BMX Bandit has just lost his only role.
> 
> The big problem with 3.5 were spells that let the mage be a better theif than the rougue (knock), or the spells that let the mage fight equal footing with a fighter (tenser transformation), or the series of spells that let the cleric be a far better fighter that the fighter (divine power/might/favor combo).
> 
> When Knock and Tenser Transformation were induced in 1st and 2ed, respective, there were other limits on wizards.  In 1st/2nd ed your known spells were limited to a number based on your intelligence score.  This made you think carefully about adding spells and keeping to the ones you know you would use.  3ed removed this, you add all spells you find to you spell book, and then make scrolls for those nitch spells like knock when you had the time/money/xp to write scrolls.




I actually thought that.  That is why this example bugs me. What is going on in the back story/system that makes Angel Summoner totally useless  except when it comes time to send in the HAMMER.

Are angels good at the other stuff?  Seems that they are really only good at fighting,  Or maybe the Angel Summoner is not good enough to direct them to do that.  

We have no evidence to suggest that Angel Summoner is capable of doing the stuff that Bandit has apparently done to bring them to the video's point of action.

I know the anti-angel comments were snark, but as a GM, I would not put A.S. and BMX against normal thugs with no supernatural defense any more than I would put a 12 level party through Sunless Citadel.

RK


----------



## MerricB (May 17, 2012)

rkwoodard said:


> We have no evidence to suggest that Angel Summoner is capable of doing the stuff that Bandit has apparently done to bring them to the video's point of action.




Actually, we have: in the third of the sketches, it's Angel Summoner who suggests that BMX Bandit do all the stuff to take out the criminals and the method for doing so. (To which BMX Bandit suggests that perhaps it would be better to summon the angels...)

All three sketches appear in the very first episode of series one of "That Mitchell and Webb Look", btw. We watched the episode last night. 

Cheers!


----------



## Tallifer (May 17, 2012)

The Angel Summoner and BMX Bandit video is simply too full of truth, real life experience and humour to ever be forgotten. I salute it as a terrific contribution to all roleplaying debates for all future generations.

The only proper response is for someone to make a video or comic strip equally as funny, truthy  and experiential to promote his side of the debate.


----------



## Janx (May 17, 2012)

rkwoodard said:


> I actually thought that.  That is why this example bugs me. What is going on in the back story/system that makes Angel Summoner totally useless  except when it comes time to send in the HAMMER.
> 
> Are angels good at the other stuff?  Seems that they are really only good at fighting,  Or maybe the Angel Summoner is not good enough to direct them to do that.




Actually, the angels seem quite capable of carrying a BMX bike and rider across an impossible chasm.

And in the final episode, it is Angel Summoner who works out the plan for BMX to execute because he's already got his angels in place to help BMX suceed.

I think you're intentionally reading less into the point that Angel Summoner can summon Angels to do anything to create a non-existant weakness in Angel Summoner's power as compared to BMX Bandit.


----------



## rkwoodard (May 17, 2012)

Janx said:


> Actually, the angels seem quite capable of carrying a BMX bike and rider across an impossible chasm.
> 
> And in the final episode, it is Angel Summoner who works out the plan for BMX to execute because he's already got his angels in place to help BMX suceed.
> 
> I think you're intentionally reading less into the point that Angel Summoner can summon Angels to do anything to create a non-existant weakness in Angel Summoner's power as compared to BMX Bandit.





No, my bad was that I did not see all of the episodes, now that a couple have been pointed out, I will step back.

I still hate the hyperbole as I see this as another dead end  "Too Video Gamey" wall.

There is certainly a gap in power. And discussing those gaps (how big, is it a big or small problem, how to fix) is well worth discussion.  


And, to the other poster, I will not be creating my own funny video because I dislike this one anymore than I will start a new Science Fiction station because I am unhappy with Sy-Fy's programming.

RK


----------



## Janx (May 17, 2012)

rkwoodard said:


> No, my bad was that I did not see all of the episodes, now that a couple have been pointed out, I will step back.
> 
> I still hate the hyperbole as I see this as another dead end  "Too Video Gamey" wall.
> 
> There is certainly a gap in power. And discussing those gaps (how big, is it a big or small problem, how to fix) is well worth discussion.




thanks for acknowledging the correction.  I like to see people adjust their thinking when new evidence comes in.

I'd never seen or heard of AS/BB until danny posted the video on this thread.

I can certainly see that it is valid advice that a game design should avoid or correct a situation where one PC is very powerful like Angel Summoner, and the other is more limited in power like BMX Bandit.

I wouldn't read much more into it though.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 17, 2012)

> I can certainly see that it is valid advice that a game design should avoid or correct a situation where one PC is very powerful like Angel Summoner, and the other is more limited in power like BMX Bandit.




I think AS/BB does serve as a shorthand for a valid consideration.

But having played and enjoyed playing both ASs* and BBs in a variety of games, I don't see a lack of balance as an absolute flaw.  It's just different.



* that's the plural, people!


----------



## Janx (May 17, 2012)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> * that's the plural, people!





Wouldn't it be "ASes" since it ends with an S?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 17, 2012)

Janx said:


> Wouldn't it be "ASes" since it ends with an S?




It's the plural, yes.

The rule for dealing with acronyms, though...it's based on the acronym:



> Although an apostrophe may precede the s when forming plurals of letters, signs, symbols, figures, etc., the trend is to omit the apostrophe unless it causes confusion to do so...
> 
> 
> http://www.experts123.com/q/is-an-a...tters-figures-abbreviations-acronyms-etc.html



So it could have been AS's or ASs, but not ASes.


----------



## MichaelSomething (May 18, 2012)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I think AS/BB does serve as a shorthand for a valid consideration.
> 
> But having played and enjoyed playing both ASs* and BBs in a variety of games, I don't see a lack of balance as an absolute flaw.  It's just different.




Well a lot of people consider it a big flaw for various reasons, especially if they don't see it coming.  The game gets played in way the game designers never expected or thought about.  Sometimes, it can turn out great and other times it doesn't.  It would help if the designers laid out the expected game style, so that people who do something different will know they're off the beaten path, and to be wary of surprises.


----------

