And by big, I don't mean "One problem that could easily be fixed by a slight rules change."
Typical threads in IMHO consist of the game designers of D&D designing something that is crazy/off-the-wall/etc., and we can't stand it, and for good reason (MCWOD for ex).
But Internet Message Boards and web sites are hardly indicative of reality, so how do we know that Chain-Binding Efreet is an incredibly common tactic in D&D games, or that the rules loopholes that we find are as troublesome and common as they appear to be? How do we know that broken loophole A is obvious enough to be exploited by a large portion of gamers? Also, if said loophole is possible with combinations from obscure splatbooks, then I believe that it would not be as valid as a concern, because not a lot of players have an expansive library of rulebooks from what I experienced.
Now, the fact that a loophole exists is a problem in and of itself, but if it is not obvious/easily fixable by a house rule without requiring a massive rewrite, then it may not see the light of day at many tables.
And that's probably why I like D&D; so many of its problems are buried within the niches instead of being blatantly obvious, with some exceptions.
Say, for Chain Binding Efreet, why not have a DM make it so that players just can't summon Efreet, because said Efreet have a bunch of magical counter-measures to avoid being summoned against their will?
How do we know that Broken Loophole A is a big problem?
Moderator: Moderators
How do we know that Broken Loophole A is a big problem?
Last edited by Jerry on Sat Jun 07, 2008 7:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
RandomCasualty2
- Prince
- Posts: 3295
- Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 4:22 pm
As for common tactics, we don't know. There's really no way to tell.
As far as a possible tactic that can be employed, then it's absolutely dangerous.
I mean most gamers, some even power gamers, just don't bother to read up on spells like planar binding or polymorph because the wording is so complicated. So as far as common threats, it's not going to infiltrate the majority of games.
The major "loopholes" casual games have to worry about is crap like shivering touch and wraithstrike. The things that pretty much tell you how to abuse them.
However, that doesn't mean that it couldn't be a problem in your particular game.
As far as a possible tactic that can be employed, then it's absolutely dangerous.
I mean most gamers, some even power gamers, just don't bother to read up on spells like planar binding or polymorph because the wording is so complicated. So as far as common threats, it's not going to infiltrate the majority of games.
The major "loopholes" casual games have to worry about is crap like shivering touch and wraithstrike. The things that pretty much tell you how to abuse them.
However, that doesn't mean that it couldn't be a problem in your particular game.
-
CatharzGodfoot
- King
- Posts: 5668
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
- Location: North Carolina
What do you mean by big?
Rules problems are only worth thinking about in the context of fixing them or powering through them. With something like chain binding, it's easy enough to fix that not doing so is a very bad sign.
Here's an analogy: You go to a restaurant. When you get your food you notice that your glass is dirty. You point this out the waiter, and she ignores you, tells you to wash it yourself, or accuses you of being a 'power diner'.
It's trivially simple to wash your glass, but would you really want to eat there?
Rules problems are only worth thinking about in the context of fixing them or powering through them. With something like chain binding, it's easy enough to fix that not doing so is a very bad sign.
Here's an analogy: You go to a restaurant. When you get your food you notice that your glass is dirty. You point this out the waiter, and she ignores you, tells you to wash it yourself, or accuses you of being a 'power diner'.
It's trivially simple to wash your glass, but would you really want to eat there?
The law in its majestic equality forbids the rich as well as the poor from stealing bread, begging and sleeping under bridges.
-Anatole France
Mount Flamethrower on rear
Drive in reverse
Win Game.
-Josh Kablack
-Anatole France
Mount Flamethrower on rear
Drive in reverse
Win Game.
-Josh Kablack
To Catharz: By big, I mean blatantly obvious power loops/loopholes/inconsistencies that can be a.) noticed by a large group of gamers and b.) can cause large power discrepancies between those that use said rules and those that don't, and/or cause group enjoyment to get damaged by exploiting said rule.
Last edited by Jerry on Sat Jun 07, 2008 8:51 pm, edited 2 times in total.
-
SunTzuWarmaster
- Knight-Baron
- Posts: 948
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Spells that say "this spell is made of awesome and it is clearly the best choice for you to take this level" are all 'broken' or 'overpowered' in one manner or another.
These are the things that get abused all of the time because they are just that good. For instance, most casual readers notice that Charm Person, if cast on a guard or on the first round of combat makes him switch sides for a RIDICULOUSLY LONG period of time. It is flat-out better than a Shocking Grasp (which I have never seen a player use in all of my D&D days).
The first time that I read Divine Power and Call Lightning, I thought to myself "wtf, why is this flat out better than anything else?" I expect that these are abused by anyone playing the respective classes. Lesser power-gaming such as Color Spray and Hippogriffing I expect to be less common.
These are the things that get abused all of the time because they are just that good. For instance, most casual readers notice that Charm Person, if cast on a guard or on the first round of combat makes him switch sides for a RIDICULOUSLY LONG period of time. It is flat-out better than a Shocking Grasp (which I have never seen a player use in all of my D&D days).
The first time that I read Divine Power and Call Lightning, I thought to myself "wtf, why is this flat out better than anything else?" I expect that these are abused by anyone playing the respective classes. Lesser power-gaming such as Color Spray and Hippogriffing I expect to be less common.
By and large all loopholes are problems.
At the table, DM fiat generally negates those problems de facto through Stealth Nerfing and simply flat-out saying no. Nonetheless they are problems because they can cause awkward situations at the table, and rules disputes, etc, etc. Also, if the DM is naive enough to think the rules are perfect and wonderful as is, they can indeed lead to obscene power disparities between group members.
I have never seen anyone actually use a super broken archer-cleric, octopus druid, spelldancer infinite power loop, shades abuse, djinn abuse, etc. Two reasons:
1. A lot of these things come into play at advanced levels.
2. They require a lot of books and intimate rules knowledge, as you note.
3. Most players probably have sense that if they break the game the DM might simply tell them to go screw themselves.
While unintended degenerate recursive interactions are annoying, the problems they present at the table are miniscule compared to the more insidious deeper fundamental game design problems often encountered (such as going off the RNG, power disparities, philosophical inconsistencies, etc).
At the table, DM fiat generally negates those problems de facto through Stealth Nerfing and simply flat-out saying no. Nonetheless they are problems because they can cause awkward situations at the table, and rules disputes, etc, etc. Also, if the DM is naive enough to think the rules are perfect and wonderful as is, they can indeed lead to obscene power disparities between group members.
I have never seen anyone actually use a super broken archer-cleric, octopus druid, spelldancer infinite power loop, shades abuse, djinn abuse, etc. Two reasons:
1. A lot of these things come into play at advanced levels.
2. They require a lot of books and intimate rules knowledge, as you note.
3. Most players probably have sense that if they break the game the DM might simply tell them to go screw themselves.
While unintended degenerate recursive interactions are annoying, the problems they present at the table are miniscule compared to the more insidious deeper fundamental game design problems often encountered (such as going off the RNG, power disparities, philosophical inconsistencies, etc).
Last edited by rapa-nui on Sat Jun 07, 2008 11:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
To the scientist there is the joy in pursuing truth which nearly counteracts the depressing revelations of truth. ~HP Lovecraft
I know that RNG is short for "Random Number Generator," but what does going off the RNG mean? Getting a modifier greater than +20?
Also, what other power disparities exist at most levels other than Fighter, Clerics, Druids, and Wizards?
And by philosophical inconsistencies, do you mean alignment, or are there other philosophical inconsistencies other than alignment that you know of?
Also, what other power disparities exist at most levels other than Fighter, Clerics, Druids, and Wizards?
And by philosophical inconsistencies, do you mean alignment, or are there other philosophical inconsistencies other than alignment that you know of?
Last edited by Jerry on Sun Jun 08, 2008 12:56 am, edited 1 time in total.
I kinda view fixing loopholes as being something akin to work ethic. The ability to do a job and care enough to take the effort to fix all of the oddities that crop up.
Anyway, relying on DMs to sort out problems on an individual basis is all well and good, but I'd like to hand them a system where, indeed, they don't have to do that much and they don't have to content with weird shit that someone in the group wants to exploit mercilessly.
Another goal have a system where you can be sure that everyone understands what the power balance is, what's good and why it's good, so you can be sure that DMs are doing relatively sane stuff when they modify the game.
Anyway, relying on DMs to sort out problems on an individual basis is all well and good, but I'd like to hand them a system where, indeed, they don't have to do that much and they don't have to content with weird shit that someone in the group wants to exploit mercilessly.
Another goal have a system where you can be sure that everyone understands what the power balance is, what's good and why it's good, so you can be sure that DMs are doing relatively sane stuff when they modify the game.
He jumps like a damned dragoon, and charges into battle fighting rather insane monsters with little more than his bare hands and rather nasty spell effects conjured up solely through knowledge and the local plantlife. He unerringly knows where his goal lies, he breathes underwater and is untroubled by space travel, seems to have no limits to his actual endurance and favors killing his enemies by driving both boots square into their skull. His agility is unmatched, and his strength legendary, able to fling about a turtle shell big enough to contain a man with enough force to barrel down a near endless path of unfortunates.
--The horror of Mario
Zak S, Zak Smith, Dndwithpornstars, Zak Sabbath. He is a terrible person and a hack at writing and art. His cultural contributions are less than Justin Bieber's, and he's a shitmuffin. Go go gadget Googlebomb!
--The horror of Mario
Zak S, Zak Smith, Dndwithpornstars, Zak Sabbath. He is a terrible person and a hack at writing and art. His cultural contributions are less than Justin Bieber's, and he's a shitmuffin. Go go gadget Googlebomb!
1) Going off the RNG doesn't mean having more then +20, it means having +20 more then your DC/opponent.Jerry wrote:I know that RNG is short for "Random Number Generator," but what does going off the RNG mean? Getting a modifier greater than +20?
Also, what other power disparities exist at most levels other than Fighter, Clerics, Druids, and Wizards?
And by philosophical inconsistencies, do you mean alignment, or are there other philosophical inconsistencies other than alignment that you know of?
If "high" AC enemies have ACs of 40, and you have a to hit of 38, you are off the RNG, because you genuinely don't care what you role except crits.
If you want to make a DC 20 Tumble check to avoid AoEs, or Concentration check of X to cast defensively, or spellcraft check of Y to identify a spell being cast, or make a hide check against an opponent, you don't care what you roll, because by putting one skill rank every level and raising you casting stat/attack stat you automatically win even if you roll a 1.
That's going off the RNG, and everyone does it past level 6 in D&D.
2) Other power disparities? The problem is that. The game is made of two types of characters, those that do awesome things, and those that take up space, depending on how your group plays, and how well you build different classes fall in different categories, but no matter how you play it, some classes are traps, and some classes are awesome, and some classes are super duper awesome.
Whether that be Monk/Ranger/Fighter/Paladin traps vs Rogue/Cleric/Wizard/Druid win, or Monk/Ranger/Paladin/Rogue/most fighters traps vs Cleric/Druid/Wizard/Uberchargers because your DM is stupid, either way someone is useless.
3) Philo: Alignment, Undead, Fiends, law/chaos (the objective forces and their paragons different from alignment), tyranny vs the people, how things really work: IE should we conquer this country or ignore it and deal with something actually important?
Getting a modifier greater than +20 doesn't necessarily take you "off the RNG". When target numbers are so low that no matter you roll on the RNG you succeed, THAT is going off the RNG. So, suppose you have a BAB of +20. If you're trying to hit an average AC of 30, you're perfectly in the middle of the RNG. But if the average AC you're trying to hit is 10, you might as well forget the RNG, since rolling doesn't make any difference (I'm ignoring auto-hit and auto-miss for sake of simplicity).Jerry wrote:I know that RNG is short for "Random Number Generator," but what does going off the RNG mean? Getting a modifier greater than +20?
Also, what other power disparities exist at most levels other than Fighter, Clerics, Druids, and Wizards?
And by philosophical inconsistencies, do you mean alignment, or are there other philosophical inconsistencies other than alignment that you know of?
Power disparities aren't a function of class so much as a function of BUILDS. In D&D certain classes present themselves as particularly exploitable, but really, power disparities exist from other sources as well. What equipment your character buys, or DM gives you for instance (DM Stealth Nerfing often takes the shape of special items intended for a character that needs a little catching up to the rest of the party in power).
By philosophical inconsistencies, I was referring more to philosophical issue during game design. If you have 10 people working on a game system, and each person has a different idea of what its goals and intent are, the system will be hodgepodge with inherent flaws deep in the ruleset and writing. For example, in D&D 3.x STR and CON were considered 'powerful' ability scores compared to CHA and INT because the design philosophy behind the game had some seriously problematic assumptions regarding the way people play the game. These problems get exponentially worse as splat material and extra authors are brought in who either reinforce or disagree with initial design philosophy.
EDIT: But yes, philosophical considerations can also include the stupidity that was the ill-defined 3.x Law/Chaos alignment axis.
Last edited by rapa-nui on Sun Jun 08, 2008 1:45 am, edited 1 time in total.
To the scientist there is the joy in pursuing truth which nearly counteracts the depressing revelations of truth. ~HP Lovecraft
I know what you mean about law/chaos. I mean, in Planescape, Ssandam and Ygorl made it so that the Slaadi would have predictable forms so that no Slaad will become more powerful than the rulers. Even though this is hurting the forces of Chaos, I sincerely doubt that dictators ever want to give up power.Kaelik wrote:
3) Philo: Alignment, Undead, Fiends, law/chaos (the objective forces and their paragons different from alignment), tyranny vs the people, how things really work: IE should we conquer this country or ignore it and deal with something actually important?
And the Slaadi Lords are acting less like exemplars of Chaos and more like power-hungry dictators.
Also, what do you mean by Tyranny vs. the people? In Baator, tyranny IS the people!
Last edited by Jerry on Sun Jun 08, 2008 2:25 am, edited 1 time in total.