Underpowered Mundanes or Overpowered Magic - Which is worse?

[snakeman830]

MONK

The monk is the only other core class, aside from the barbarian, that has no dead levels. Players always have something to look forward to with the monk, which boasts the most colorful and unique special abilities of all the character classes.

Only if colorful refers to bloody...

[Senevri]

Heh. Having a bunch of meh abilities wouldn't be THAT bad (see: Balance isn't that important ), but it's also a rather grab-bag set of random stuff.
Ah, I remember when 3.0 came out, a lot of people thought that Monk was overpowered or that they didn't need magical equipment...

[Sunic_Flames]

Well...
Here's the thing; Without awareness AND having access to multitude splat books, you cannot make certain logical, archetypal concepts into even baseline efficient builds.

Yes, I think we have established that beatsticks fail by now. And to tie it back to the original point, that is why underpowered mundanes are the problem. A high power but workable game > an unworkable game of any power level any day.

As for traps being all over the place, unfortunately that's a part of D&D. Don't like it, don't play it, but without a minesweeper it has more traps than a tranny bar. This is particularly true in Pathfailure, where making traps is an inherent part of the design, instead of merely being an inherent part of the design principles. But it also holds true for 3rd and 3.5 and all the others.

By the way, the same guy who caught on near instantly to Natural Spell Druids also caught onto beatstick failure with similar time and effort.

He had excellent insight into game dynamics then.  Just looking at individual mechanics in a RPG, it is often hard for players to see when something sucks. No feat, class feature, or PrC has in it's description: "Oh, and by the way, this ability really sucks."  In fact, descriptions tend to be exciting, and useful sounding.  It takes a somewhat broader view of the system as a whole, with it's parts interacting to see the imbalances.  All the classes can get confusing.  It takes most people a while to realize, if they ever do, that, in terms of power progression, fighters are an arithmetic progression with occasional geometric boosts(BAB breakpoints), while casters are a flat geometric progression.  Just for illustrative purposes: Beatstick: 1,2,3,4,5,10,11,12,13,14...  Caster:1,2,4,8,16...

With the really obvious ones like that, I think it's actually easier if you are new. Then you don't have things like memories from older editions clouding your judgment. For less obvious ones it does require some insight, but the no brainer stuff is just that. A no brainer. He needed me to point out Fleshrakers, and some other more obscure stuff but he got all the basics on his own and would have been perfectly fine with just those.

Monk fail is slightly less subtle, which somewhat justifies that someone whose name will be withheld recently claimed Monks were completely playable as long as all of their opponents were not optimized theoretical casters. I of course pointed out anything remotely level appropriate slaughters them, spells or not.

[Bauglir]

Yeah, the thing about the whole thing is that once you get into a paradigm you start to think of that as balanced. I was good enough to realize that True Seeing just annihilated the entire school of Illusion before I even finished building my first character. I realized that Mind Blank shut down enchanters, too. Those kinds of things kind of irritated the party bard, just in principle, because it invalidated at high levels the character concept she wanted (even if we never got there). And I could see that Time Stop was kind of amazing, but I thought that Delayed Blast Fireball was clearly the appropriate use. At the same time, I thought ToB was broken when it was introduced because the DM used it effectively; our party wasn't good enough at optimizing to realize that spellcasters won battles on their own at this point, so it looked like it was just absurdly powerful for a single character to disable enemies in a single attack at levels higher than 1. And that's because my assumptions about the game didn't allow for that, because it just wasn't something that happened in the first year or so of gaming that I did.

So yeah, I think that if you're new, you're a lot more able to adapt to the current ruleset. Coming in with expectations based on an older, less balanced design colors your opinions of what you see in the new set. Because you've played the old one, you're comfortable with it, and of course it's balanced, because your games have been fun, so anything that upsets that must be unbalancing. At least, that tends to be what happens.

As an addendum, it's kind of impressive that this sort of reaction didn't happen with 4E as far as I could tell. Most people seemed to agree that it was better balanced than 3.5, which is odd. Objections seemed to stem more from the monotony the system gave rise to.

[raith0]

As an addendum, it's kind of impressive that this sort of reaction didn't happen with 4E as far as I could tell. Most people seemed to agree that it was better balanced than 3.5, which is odd. Objections seemed to stem more from the monotony the system gave rise to.

this and a feeling of clostraphobia of creating characters where my big complaints and why i went away from 4th ed.  I still think the overall most unbalancing feature of 3rd was the single EXP chart for levels.  i know the multiclass system would be completely different but and maybe undoable but i think some classes should of had a few less levels and a higher cost to get to them

[ProfessorCirno]

The monk is hilarious, because the whole Flurry of Misses is applicable to the entire class design - a fuckton of abilities, but all of them just whiffs.

As for traps and such, the problem is really fourfold.

1) 3e was designed to reward system mastery.  That, in of itself, is not a bad thing.  Ok, people who really know the rules are a bit better.  However,
2) The system was designed to have traps.  That IS a bad thing.  It's fine for some party members to be a bit better then others.  It's not fine for entire archtypes or even just feats themselves to be "traps" that actively make your character worse.  Rewarding system mastery is "Hooray for you, you did good! "  System traps is just a great big "Hey you, new player, FUCK YOU."
3) What is a trap and what's given a boost is decided based on being a dumb fuck.  This is the worst thing.  Why are finesse fighters terrible?  because "fuck them," apparently, that's about the only answer that can be seen.  Why is magic infinitely powerful?  Because "fuck jocks," it would seem, nerdy-ass wizards have to rule the world and never get stuffed in a locker again.  The designers played favorites, and played them hard.  Sorcerer is kept worst then wizard because "Fuck that guy."

And finally

4) They didn't know any better.  I'm convinced that not all the player traps or huge power breakouts were intentional.  Most weren't.  Oh, some of them are intentionally shitty, but I think a lot of them came down to "this is cool" and "this is mechanically useful" clashing.  The full spring attack chain, for example, I think, wasn't actually intended to be utterly shit.  The problem really came down to a few run-away mechanics that they didn't or couldn't reign in.  Full attacks is a big one - they were so terrified of HP damage being "too much" that they destroyed the biggest and most awesome thing fighters in 2e had - a large number of attacks per turn.  It's something no other class could compare with - even if a cleric boosted his attack abilities to the sky, he still hit once while the fighter hit 5/2 times (yes, 5/2.  Welcome to 2e).  There's so many options that blow because and only because "You can't full attack."  A lot of 3e concepts sound good on paper, but then you look at the actual mechanics and it's a goddamn mess.

[The_Mad_Linguist]

It's not that exactly.  The designers, for example, actually thought that strength was the most valuable stat for racial mods (see the DMG), since it's basically like BAB but better.  They honestly thought that comparing ability scores to class features was a meaningful way to get a balance point (that is, that the classes were balanced)

[Senevri]

This reminds me, I need to do my own monk rewrite one of these days.
I actually like the Pathfinder monk okay, for the most part, but even that is sort of an evolution of the D&D monk's legacy. It's not much like what a real-world martial monk IS.
( which is basically someone who goes through life doing Training from Hell all..,. the.... time! )
Also, there's not much reference to actual legendary techniques people are supposed to train in.
Say, something like what's in here.

[LordBlades]

It's not that exactly.  The designers, for example, actually thought that strength was the most valuable stat for racial mods (see the DMG), since it's basically like BAB but better.  They honestly thought that comparing ability scores to class features was a meaningful way to get a balance point (that is, that the classes were balanced)

Many of the assumptions in core and early splatbooks have lead me to believe that the guys who who worked on them didn't have a very good idea about how the system was actually working in practice.

[Agrippa]

As an addendum, it's kind of impressive that this sort of reaction didn't happen with 4E as far as I could tell. Most people seemed to agree that it was better balanced than 3.5, which is odd. Objections seemed to stem more from the monotony the system gave rise to.

this and a feeling of clostraphobia of creating characters where my big complaints and why i went away from 4th ed.  I still think the overall most unbalancing feature of 3rd was the single EXP chart for levels.  i know the multiclass system would be completely different but and maybe undoable but i think some classes should of had a few less levels and a higher cost to get to them

I'm working on that one.

[veekie]

Monk fail is slightly less subtle, which somewhat justifies that someone whose name will be withheld recently claimed Monks were completely playable as long as all of their opponents were not optimized theoretical casters. I of course pointed out anything remotely level appropriate slaughters them, spells or not.

Well, the detectability of fail varies.
You have abilities that outright make you worse off - even newbies can spot these. Usually.
You have dead weight abilities(hello skill focus) that occupy slots that can be used for better abilities - Nothing a little insight into the game won't fix, but this is a breeding ground for Pathfinder style traps. The hardest to spot, since you don't know the cost/value breakdown without experience or a keen instinct.
Monks are a complete and utter lack of synergy. This is hard to spot for people who cannot 'connect' synergistic abilities together. Practically everyone here at CO is good at spotting synergy(especially unintentional synergy), but taken on their own, all the abilities read as good ideas.

Flurry + 3/4 BAB = fail.
Monk weapons(universally low damage dice) + Extra attacks = fail.
Flurry(a full attack only mechanic) + Speed boost & mobility = fail.
Lack of armor + (at best) light armor equivalent bonus AC = fail.
Low AC + Full Attack mechanic = fail.
Low AC + high mobility = nearly win, except they won't be able to do jack offensively. So fail.
Best attacks tied to unarmed strikes(which cost much more to enhance than weapons) = fail.
"Unequipped Class" + no significant replacement for equipment = fail.

Funny thing is, if their AC bonus was actually comparable to heavy armor(a Medium Armor static bonus + a second stat to AC should do it),  they could actually risk full attacking.
If they could flurry with decent weapons, it would actually be worth the risk.
If their unarmed strikes had built in enhancement bonuses to hit and damage instead of the useless Ki Strike(magic), you could even hit sometimes with 3/4 BAB.
If flurry could be used as a standard action, or could be added to single or full attacks alike(like Snap Kick), then you could actually move and hit respectably.

Now consider this. A monk with AC unarmored bonus comparable to medium armor + Wis to AC, with a scaling enhancement bonus to unarmed strikes, full BAB, flurry that works even if you move.
Now it becomes merely bad in the same sense Barbarian is, that is to say it'd be good within it's niche speciality, but nowhere else, rather than being useless at everything.

As for matching RL martial monks, a lot of the stuff seems akin to ToB really, especially if you tap into the fiction(which you would if you're making monks above level 6). The Iron Cloth Vest(

[Bloody Initiate]

The monk is hilarious, because the whole Flurry of Misses is applicable to the entire class design - a fuckton of abilities, but all of them just whiffs.

As for traps and such, the problem is really fourfold.

1) 3e was designed to reward system mastery.  That, in of itself, is not a bad thing.  Ok, people who really know the rules are a bit better.  However,
2) The system was designed to have traps.  That IS a bad thing.  It's fine for some party members to be a bit better then others.  It's not fine for entire archtypes or even just feats themselves to be "traps" that actively make your character worse.  Rewarding system mastery is "Hooray for you, you did good! "  System traps is just a great big "Hey you, new player, FUCK YOU."
3) What is a trap and what's given a boost is decided based on being a dumb fuck.  This is the worst thing.  Why are finesse fighters terrible?  because "fuck them," apparently, that's about the only answer that can be seen.  Why is magic infinitely powerful?  Because "fuck jocks," it would seem, nerdy-ass wizards have to rule the world and never get stuffed in a locker again.  The designers played favorites, and played them hard.  Sorcerer is kept worst then wizard because "Fuck that guy."

And finally

4) They didn't know any better.  I'm convinced that not all the player traps or huge power breakouts were intentional.  Most weren't.  Oh, some of them are intentionally shitty, but I think a lot of them came down to "this is cool" and "this is mechanically useful" clashing.  The full spring attack chain, for example, I think, wasn't actually intended to be utterly shit.  The problem really came down to a few run-away mechanics that they didn't or couldn't reign in.  Full attacks is a big one - they were so terrified of HP damage being "too much" that they destroyed the biggest and most awesome thing fighters in 2e had - a large number of attacks per turn.  It's something no other class could compare with - even if a cleric boosted his attack abilities to the sky, he still hit once while the fighter hit 5/2 times (yes, 5/2.  Welcome to 2e).  There's so many options that blow because and only because "You can't full attack."  A lot of 3e concepts sound good on paper, but then you look at the actual mechanics and it's a goddamn mess.

Lol I feel this way every time I try to make a TWFer. The whole system keeps telling me "FUCK YOU!" because I keep wanting it to be cool to fight with two weapons and NOT be a rogue.

Oh well, I still have a good time with ToB.

[veekie]

Goddamn TWF.
I wound up Arcane rogue gishing with Greater Magic Weapon + Greater Mighty Whallop in melee.

[Sunic_Flames]

The monk is hilarious, because the whole Flurry of Misses is applicable to the entire class design - a fuckton of abilities, but all of them just whiffs.

Random abilities with no synergy = fail. Paizo is really heavy on the Monk fail. They throw that into as many classes as possible.

The rest.

Plus Fucking One. Except one thing. Spring Attack would still be terrible, even if you could full attack with it because the way it works effectively cuts your movement in half. Which means you spend 3 feats, you full attack, and you're still in range to be full attacked back. Which rather defeats the whole fucking point of spending the 3 feats..

[Kuroimaken]

The monk is hilarious, because the whole Flurry of Misses is applicable to the entire class design - a fuckton of abilities, but all of them just whiffs.

Random abilities with no synergy = fail. Paizo is really heavy on the Monk fail. They throw that into as many classes as possible.

The rest.

Plus Fucking One. Except one thing. Spring Attack would still be terrible, even if you could full attack with it because the way it works effectively cuts your movement in half. Which means you spend 3 feats, you full attack, and you're still in range to be full attacked back. Which rather defeats the whole fucking point of spending the 3 feats..

Unless you optimize the fuck out of having a bigger speed, but I get your point.

Flyby attack is superior in every way.

[Sunic_Flames]

The monk is hilarious, because the whole Flurry of Misses is applicable to the entire class design - a fuckton of abilities, but all of them just whiffs.

Random abilities with no synergy = fail. Paizo is really heavy on the Monk fail. They throw that into as many classes as possible.

The rest.

Plus Fucking One. Except one thing. Spring Attack would still be terrible, even if you could full attack with it because the way it works effectively cuts your movement in half. Which means you spend 3 feats, you full attack, and you're still in range to be full attacked back. Which rather defeats the whole fucking point of spending the 3 feats..

Unless you optimize the fuck out of having a bigger speed, but I get your point.

Flyby attack is superior in every way.

Aside from Chuck builds, how do you pull that one off?

And I'd just use Pounce + some Swift action movement ability to get it.

[veekie]

Simple, get a speed optimized Monk cohort. Preferably something with a good speed.
Be a halfling. Use Ride(Monk).

[Mixster]

Flyby attack is superior in every way.

Unless you can't fly.

But, to answer the OP, and hopefully bring this topic remotely back to track:

I think overpowered Magic is worse.
Why? Well, let's start with the reason to make mundanes stronger (here-after mundanes will be known as low-tier classes, and magic-users known as high-tier classes):
Low-tier classes could get buffed, which would make your players happy, but it would in turn make the party as a whole more powerful. It stands to logic that if one part of a group that works closely together gets more self-reliant, or simply better at their task, the group as a whole will benefit. This hurts the CR system, because High-Tier classes already laugh at "level appropriate encounters".
Making the party as whole better thus debases the CR system, and while the CR system is not perfect, it is tremendously useful for players and DMs alike, IMO it is the best thing 3.5 has that Ad&d doesn't have, a neat guideline for what is balanced to throw at the party, and I can assume they will use up 25% of their resources. Or what I can assume will become a 50% chance of a loss for the party.
Now let's see what happens if we make the high-tier classes worse. The worst thing IMO is that it pisses of players, I actually had a player argue against me that the wizard was underpowered because he couldn't use his low level slots at higher levels and thus talked our DM into giving him Int to damage on all his damage spells, including every missile on magic missile. Anyway, if we someway could bring all high-Tier classes to a mid-tier level, we would make the classes that already laugh at "level appropriate encounters", have to think as much as the mid-tier classes to handle such encounters. There would be less feeling of imbalance within the group, for while the fighter might think he isn't as useful as the warblade and the wizard, at least the wizard doesn't make the encounter into nothing but a sweep-up with one spell before the fighter and the warblade gets to do anything. Now they all get to do something in the encounter.

So IMO the biggest problem is Overpowered magic, because it sometimes can just say: Screw the rules, I'm a wizard, I can do what I want to do.

I'm not discussing the Flaws of the Challenge Rating system here, neither am I discussing the fundamentals of it (which I know, but do not care to discuss since it can be read in a book). Neither am I telling you how to make the High-Tier Caster Classes into something along the lines of the warblade and his friends, because that discussion is to me a lot more complicated.

This is also why I do not like Tome Rules or Pathfinder.
Pathfinder seemed very random in what they nerfed and what they buffed, and tome rules seem to buff every character to a Tier 2-3 class.

Oh and if you don't agree with the Tier system, remember that it is basically the same as the X% success system, just worded differently, and simpler.

[Sunic_Flames]

Flyby attack is superior in every way.

Unless you can't fly.

And then you are fucked.

But, to answer the OP, and hopefully bring this topic remotely back to track:

I think overpowered Magic is worse.
Why? Well, let's start with the reason to make mundanes stronger (here-after mundanes will be known as low-tier classes, and magic-users known as high-tier classes):
Low-tier classes could get buffed, which would make your players happy, but it would in turn make the party as a whole more powerful. It stands to logic that if one part of a group that works closely together gets more self-reliant, or simply better at their task, the group as a whole will benefit. This hurts the CR system, because High-Tier classes already laugh at "level appropriate encounters".
Making the party as whole better thus debases the CR system, and while the CR system is not perfect, it is tremendously useful for players and DMs alike, IMO it is the best thing 3.5 has that Ad&d doesn't have, a neat guideline for what is balanced to throw at the party, and I can assume they will use up 25% of their resources. Or what I can assume will become a 50% chance of a loss for the party.
Now let's see what happens if we make the high-tier classes worse. The worst thing IMO is that it pisses of players, I actually had a player argue against me that the wizard was underpowered because he couldn't use his low level slots at higher levels and thus talked our DM into giving him Int to damage on all his damage spells, including every missile on magic missile. Anyway, if we someway could bring all high-Tier classes to a mid-tier level, we would make the classes that already laugh at "level appropriate encounters", have to think as much as the mid-tier classes to handle such encounters. There would be less feeling of imbalance within the group, for while the fighter might think he isn't as useful as the warblade and the wizard, at least the wizard doesn't make the encounter into nothing but a sweep-up with one spell before the fighter and the warblade gets to do anything. Now they all get to do something in the encounter.

So IMO the biggest problem is Overpowered magic, because it sometimes can just say: Screw the rules, I'm a wizard, I can do what I want to do.

I'm not discussing the Flaws of the Challenge Rating system here, neither am I discussing the fundamentals of it (which I know, but do not care to discuss since it can be read in a book). Neither am I telling you how to make the High-Tier Caster Classes into something along the lines of the warblade and his friends, because that discussion is to me a lot more complicated.

This is also why I do not like Tome Rules or Pathfinder.
Pathfinder seemed very random in what they nerfed and what they buffed, and tome rules seem to buff every character to a Tier 2-3 class.

Oh and if you don't agree with the Tier system, remember that it is basically the same as the X% success system, just worded differently, and simpler.

And then you remember both that you need characters actually able to deal with encounters or you cannot deal with encounters, and that Tome rules buffing everything to 2-3 is exactly what mid tier means, so you've just contradicted yourself. Nerfing casters but not changing anyone else means no one can deal with encounters. Spells are actually rather balanced with themselves, and guess what most enemies use?

[Senevri]

Spells are actually rather balanced with themselves, and guess what most enemies use?

Melee attacks, in my experience.