@KRyan walking away from systems mechanics for a second... Optimization is rules heavy and flavor isn't. I don't believe role-playing and optimization are opposed and if I previously stated that my thoughts on that have changed. I do believe that the overemphasis on rules which can come from char-op can put a major damper on really hashing out character creativity

I've made characters through mechanics-oriented also but that character is nonetheless mechanics first, personality second literally.

@LitheOhm And that's a variation on the Stormwind fallacy and wrong, at least as a general statement

For example, while I do agree that dual-classing in 3e is not very optimal (for instance 10ftr/10rog) it can still convey a character concept. What's necessary for this is to acknowledge that not all characters made come with an "I win" button

there is absolutely no reason why a person/character cannot have both

Not cannot have, but is based on.

@LitheOhm classes are a meta-game concept; characters are not aware of their own class combinations

I can make a coat before I get a dog and force it to fit the dog, or I can get a dog and then make the coat for the dog. Mechanics and character concepts would run the same

@LitheOhm you're massively oversimplifying the character creation process

didn't say they were. One character concept might just be best expressed through 10ftr,10rog. Wouldn't be able to stand against many other things, but in the grand scheme of things not every character will be able to

I don't believe I am.

and no, they do not have to influence one another unless you let them

Would you explain how you believe I am?

because it's not "forcing it to fit" unless that's how you choose to approach it

you could, and probably should, approach things more synthetically

there does not need to be a dichotomy between these two things

it's not "character vs. mechanics," it's "character and mechanics"

there's no reason why you have to set the character (mechanics) in stone, then force the mechanics (character) to fit the predetermined character (mechanics)

and what of low-optimization feats, classes and skills? Are those traits simply not expressed in the character?

you can (and I'd argue should) be working with both at once

not stone really, more strong aversion. Like weapon focus or run.

@LitheOhm focus on what a character should be able to do, not a checklist of words you expect to see on your sheet

a character noted for running ability might take Run, or might have Fast Movement, or maybe even expeditious retreat

a character skilled with a sword might have Weapon Focus (sword), or he might just take classes and feats that are actually good at fighting, and choose to use a sword

how you choose to express character concepts depend on the optimization level you're going for

and if you don't know how to optimize or what is optimal, that eliminates your ability to choose an optimization level

3.5 has enough traps that you are quite likely to create a low-op character if you make one naively

but it's not guaranteed

plenty of groups of people who have never played have had one player who thought a Druid sounded cool, and having a Bear attack on the ground while he flew high in the sky as a hawk and rained lightning down on foes seemed awesome

and sure enough, that's a rather solid tactic that is going to outshine most Core Fighters, Monks, Paladins, Rangers, and Rogues

takes one feat, two common animals, and 6th level.

one iconic spell

yeah, my game had something like that when I first played. But that character isn't an end-all be-all, hopefully that person gets to play more characters. I don't see core fighters, monks, etc. as an utter waste of time even in a high-op game, strategy accounts for something

I think that what @LitheOhm may be trying to say is that in the process of combining characterization and optimization, a number of valid character options stop being options at all.

@LitheOhm at equal levels of optimization, particularly any that can be called "high," the sad fact is that fighters and monks are unable to keep up with clerics and wizards.

@BESW in part. Several options would be ignored entirely. Not that I'd want to make a character focused toward weapon focus, but an expression of a sword master would mechanically be 'weapon focus' and not just an affinity to swords

@LitheOhm an expression, not the only expression

@KRyan then how I see it, it's on the DM to account for. Not necessarily to tone it down but give everyone a means to shine

you might expect that Weapon Focus would be an important part of such a character, and indeed if 3.5 were designed better it would be, but the fact that you would not take Weapon Focus on an optimal character does not mean you cannot play a swordsman

It's a shame that there is such a disconnect between mechanics and flavour in D&D, but it comes from complex mechanics, which allow for achieving same thing (say, being a master swordsman) in many different ways. In a simpler game, where having Weapon Focus (Sword) is the only way to be better at swordfighting, that ability gains meaning in the game world.

sure, I imagine there's something in Tome of Battle with a powerful op sword master. But to shy away from other options because someone wouldn't be Guts the berserker

May I present an alternate system's approach to this, as a form of contrast?

or something along those lines, I agree that it's not the only expression

@LitheOhm that becomes extremely difficult if the disparity becomes large. If you challenge a well-played Tier 1 character, even a well-played Tier 5 character is going to have a very hard time contributing

@KRyan Which is, I think, his point.

@LitheOhm Tome of Battle is by-far the best-balanced book WotC published for 3.5; to refer to it as OP is to not understand the balance point of 3.5

it's just a mechanically weak one. To not even acknowledge it as a viable expression defeats much of the point of gaming, IMO. It was said on here somewhere that "the only flawless RPG you can play is the one you create yourself"

There are character concepts which are simply unoptimizable in 3.5, due to the nature of the system.

@KRyan right. That and our discussion on it is why I reference it

yes, I agree, but these are faults of the system, not optimization

even at lower optimization levels, all else equal, a Wizard still contributes more than a Monk

it's less egregious, but the disparity still exists

@BESW not quite. My aim is closer to DM challenge instead of abstract levels of op

@LitheOhm which is "it" in this?

@KRyan weapon focus to express a swordmaster

suppose the DM lacks ToB or wants to stick with SRD?

This started as being about the Stormwind Fallacy, didn't it?

then your group needs to determine what sort of game they want to play

@BESW yes

@KRyan I'm not sure I understand this. Would you elaborate please?

Then isn't it inherent in a 3.5-like system that for many levels of rollplay (character optimization), some types of roleplay (characterization) are restricted or curtailed as incompatible?

@LitheOhm a cleric or druid or wizard can be played down to the fighter-with-weapon-focus's level, if they wish to do so. but without knowing what makes those three classes so powerful, and what makes that particular fighter build so weak, it's likely that the fighter will be overshadowed

@BESW what was the system/example you had in mind?

@BESW I'd argue that this is more a question of 3.5's setting/fluff, to wit, it is extremely high-magic

@KRyan until an antimagic field comes in, or high spell resistance on low=HD creatures. I haven't found something where the DM can't tweak to allow each person in the group their time in the spotlight

@BESW some types of character concepts, rather than roleplay.

@KRyan So... any non-magical non-ToB concept choice is inherently weaker, I believe you've said many times, as a rollplay choice.

@LitheOhm any spellcaster worth his salt should be prepared to handle SR, and AMF is high-level and has a tiny area, and Conjuration (Creation) spells go right through it. Neither is a significant problem for a prepared spellcaster

Which is the fundamental truth at the heart of the admittedly overblown and falsely dichotomous Stormwind Fallacy.

I'm not sure it's 3e-centric. I'm learning Modern and my friend tells me he found his "I win" button already

@LitheOhm The FATE golden rule is "Decide what you’re trying to accomplish first, then consult the rules to help you do it." This works because of the generic nature of the system.

In 3.5, you have to at the very least engage in a back-and-forth compromise between your concept vision and the rules.

@KRyan terrain AMF. Dead magic, etc.

@BESW that's how I see most character creation nowadays

@LitheOhm terrible DMing; arbitrarily sidelining players, giving them no way to contribute or even ability to overcome the problem is outright disrespectful to the people who have committed their free time to you

I've seen a lot of D&D character concepts come aground on the rocks of "that's not a good build," or sometimes even "there's no way to do that."

@BESW sure, system comprehension will help in any. But a bunch of numbers on a sheet doesn't make a character concept, and at least one optimizer I know just kept focusing on his ponies one-trick and I couldn't get much else out of the character

@BESW the Stormwind Fallacy, as in the statement that "optimization is opposed to roleplaying" is a false dichotomy, but I don't know what false dichotomy you see in pointing out that false dichotomy

@LitheOhm That's the exact opposite of what I'm talking about.

@LitheOhm he's a bad roleplayer, not an optimizer

he might also be an optimizer

but forcing him not to optimize would not make him a good roleplayer

that's your mistake

@KRyan I don't think so. It's not just about party balance but people-balance

@BESW that's fairly rare in my experience at most levels of optimization

The Stormwind Fallacy combines two different ideas: that optimization can't be roleplayed, and that roleplay can't be optimized. I find the first laughable, but I think the second holds a kernal of exaggerated truth.

the no-magic character does not fit within the 3.5 system, that much is true

@KRyan not trying to force him not to optimize. Actually I asked him to make a concept first and find mechanics for it second, that seemed to work well and his character was still high-op

that's largely true at even low optimization levels

@KRyan And thus, the entire second part of Stormwind Fallacy comes into focus.

If you don't want to play a caster in 3.5, you've nerfed yourself hard already.

@BESW I'd argue that a no-magic character is outside the scope of 3.5 to begin with

the system is not as honest as it might be

but it is pretty clear that a lot of magic is expected

whether that be magic items or magic spells

@KRyan Debunking the claim that roleplay can't be optimized cannot be done in a system like 3.5 because of that.

this is the second place I've seen that holds that casters own 3.5

@LitheOhm it's a widely-accepted fact

@BESW too many negatives, I'm not following

@LitheOhm I'm not as willing to accept it as gospel truth, but there's a definite imbalance of options--and therefore of power--between casters and noncasters.

@BESW it's not just a larger array of options, those options are also frequently superior to any options available to non-casters of the same level

has this been publicly tested/proven? Can I access the data? I'm not rejecting - it just doesn't line up with my experience

@LitheOhm repeatedly and ad nauseam

try looking up the Test of Spite, or @Ernir's series of matches between a 13th-level Wizard and a 20th-level Fighter

@LitheOhm It's a matter of how much the GM works with or against non-casters in his campaign, and also how much time he spends thinking about the implications of spellcasting.

(the Wizard side won in the overwhelming majority of cases)

k

@KRyan It sounds to me like you're saying that concept and optimization are not mutually exclusive. I agree, but in systems like 3.5 where entire subsets of classes are considered to be systemically unplayable, you'll have a hard time proving that.

@BESW classes are not a roleplaying matter, whether or not a given class is usable has no bearing on this argument

whether or not a concept can be is the thing

outlawing "arbitrary" dead magic zones would definitely empower casters. I was in a campaign where this happened (for short bursts) and found it not to be sidelining

@KRyan Yes, it does, because we're talking about nearly EVERY class that can be used to represent the most common heroic type of all.

and I would argue that with the exception of extremely high-op games, and the exception of "I refuse to use all magic" concepts, this can be done in 3.5

@BESW there are so many overlaps in 3.5 between classes that amount to the same thing

and many cases where using one rather than the other is a considerably more optimal choice

without affecting roleplaying

@KRyan Given a system that's not purely narrativist, not all concepts are viable, simply because rules will dictate that some are better than others.

When "doesn't have magic" is off the table as a concept (with the late and minimal exception of ToB), I don't know how you say that class is irrelephant.

@Magician "viability" and "equality" are not the same thing

I agree whole-heartedly that your specific class makes no difference.

But I'm talking about entire categories of hero.

@BESW no class in the game espouses the idea that you should not use magic

@KRyan Have. Not use.

(excepting the Dragon magazine Forsaker prestige class, but Dragon is not WotC material)

it was also in Sword and Fist, 3.0

@BESW ok, A. Tome of Battle does exist, so stop excluding it randomly

I'm... really not sure what's going on here, because you're arguing perfectly against the model and reasoning you've been espousing for months.

@LitheOhm fair enough, 3.0 didn't concern itself with balance in the first place

@BESW huh?

@KRyan yeah. My friend mistakenly sent my his 3.0 PHB instead of my 3.5. I'm not even bothering to open it.

To paraphrase, "Casters are better, if you want to be powerful play a caster. Non-casters can't keep up with casters except in the most rigged of circumstances. ToB provides the best out of a bunch of bad choices, and only barely brings non-casters onto the field."

I'm basing my ideas on the mounds of evidence and anecdotes, math and argument that you've brought to this chat: rolling someone who cannot cast spells is always the poorer decision from a power-level perspective.

@KRyan sure, and playing a character that is strictly worse than others because of his concept is still viable. Doesn't make it good.

All I'm doing is applying that to the Stormwind Fallacy and seeing if it sticks; I think it does: "Wanting to play someone who wields magic items rather than casts himself is a always the poorer power-level decision."

@Magician never would I claim that this situation is a good one.

I really don't see what's going on here. You admit that 3.5 is not a non-caster continuum, yet you insist that this has no bearing on the idea that rollplaying priorities constrain roleplaying choices.

I'm very confused.

@BESW that... is definitely true at the highest-level of optimization, and especially in theoretical optimization. That said, I would say that most people keep themselves around the Tome of Battle level, either by playing spellcasters in a "relaxed" fashion or hitting a few important optimization points that help out some weaker classes

@BESW it is, but that does not need to be terminal to a concept

So... provided people don't play the system as it's written, the Stormwind Fallacy is false?

@BESW depends on what you means by "not as written"

but if you're referring to strict RAW and no-holds-barred, anything goes shenanigans, no one should ever play like that

in fact, no one could

because it would just be Pun-pun and game over

As statted. Without consciously refraining from making certain legal and easily-available choices that are clearly within the general intent of the designers.

@BESW impossible to say what the general intent of the designers was; even their commentary after the fact is contradictory.

@KRyan and so some character concepts will always be better than others, in a given system. Because the system cannot provide equal options for everything, and any rules will by necessity make some options better than others. Which means that certain levels of optimization will invalidate certain character concepts.

@KRyan agreed. RAI is very subject to interpretation

hell, IIRC, one guy simultaneously claimed to "playtest" with an Int 11 Wizard, while later claiming that they "intentionally" built in traps and broken combos to reward system mastery

As it'd be impossible to express them within the system to satisfy the optimization level required

@Magician yes, those cases do exist

@Magician that's more what I'm getting at

Okay, so let's see if I have this straight.

@Magician I'm... concerned by the implication that as soon as you have rules, you cannot have balance where all options are reasonably close

@KRyan same

Provided that players deliberately muzzle themselves in a way that would render moot just about every discussion on caster balance you've ever had here, the Stormwind Fallacy is fallacious.

@BESW massive overstatement of what is necessary

also, I think you're overstating the claims of the Stormwind Fallacy

And this is based on the existence of a single late-game publication with a very particular game mechanic not seen anywhere else in the system.

@BESW not entirely, but it certainly does help a great deal

in that it makes it simple

I can build a Fighter or Barbarian that can keep up with a Warblade

it will take quite a few books and quite a lot of work

As I understand it, part of the Stormwind fallacy is this: Roleplay choices can be made without impeding the achievement of mechanical effectiveness to any reasonable desired level.

@BESW no, that's not part of it

it does not make that claim

Sorry, *cannot

in fact, Stormwind concerns itself only within a given concept

@KRyan Hmmm. The implication only arises when the whole space of concepts is considered. That's like saying that Starcrat is unbalanced because your concept of an all-marine army gets slaughtered by my siege tanks.

i.e. an optimized swordsman vs. an unoptimized swordsman

Roleplaying can't also rollplay, isn't that the fundamental statement?

@Magician ok, fair enough; that goes back to my arguments that the failure of 3.5 to support a no-magic character is not really a failure, since it doesn't really claim to and it's pretty obvious that the system is very high-magic

@BESW ok, generally speaking, "rollplay" is a derogatory term. I get that you're just using it to mean optimization, but it's irksome

@KRyan Oh, I agree. Wrote a blog post on necessity of supernatural fighters, in fact. Problem (not yours) is that D&D doesn't really announce this fact, and plenty of people are in denial.

@KRyan So you see the dearth of reliable martial builds as akin to the lack of Millenium Falcons?

@Magician everyone should star this. 99% of the problems of 3.x are that it is deceptive about the potency of options.

@KRyan I'm using it because it's the term used in the answer you posted.

@BESW yeah, he's using it as it would be used by those who make the fallacy... as a general rule, the fallacy is almost always made in the "rollplayers can't roleplay!" formation

he only uses it once, as a part of that which is explicitly fallacious

@BESW by "no-magic" I mean none at all, as in refusal to use magic items, accept buffs, and so on

@KRyan And "no-magic" wasn't brought up by anyone except you, so I'm not sure what it's doing as part of the argument.

@BESW for completeness; it kind of goes back to the Vow of Poverty argument

I felt it should be acknowledged, because people do sometimes attempt to play that sort of character

@KRyan Which isn't connected to this except VERY tangentially.

@BESW well, it's a concept that I really don't think can be optimized

I brought up the concept of someone who is not a caster. It's the most common fantasy hero ever: Frodo Baggins, Taran Wanderer, Beowulf, Arther Pendragon.

They use magic, but they do not have it within themselves.

And in 3.5, you've repeatedly argued that such characters are at a strong inherent disadvantage.

@BESW ok, first of all, Frodo Baggins is not really an appropriate character for a Dungeons & Dragons game, because he really is unfit for heroism; that's what makes his narrative interesting

it simply doesn't work within the framework of 3.5 very well

or, at best, you'd model it with wildly different levels

or maybe the Commoner NPC class

ack, I have to go

anyway, my argument is that these concepts, excepting Frodo whose concept is to not be good at what he's gotten himself into, can be optimized.

they don't, ultimately, keep up, but most spellcasters are not played that optimally that mundane martial characters cannot keep up

My point, in its entirety, is that the system --whether through rules constructs like "casters are better," or through narrative constructs like "Frodo isn't fit for the job"-- is built to enforce the Stormwind Fallacy by restricting the number of character concept options that are mechanically effective without the entire group working to adjust the system to compensate.

it will take more work

the system is bad at it

but most importantly is that this was not a thing that Stormwind was guaranteeing

Tempest Stormwind really spoke almost entirely about optimizing within a particular character, whether "optimal swordsman" vs. "poor swordsman" affected roleplaying

@KRyan cool, thank you for clarifying over here in chat. Our comments were filling the page lol.

yes, optimization can, unfortunately, affect concepts and will require some compromise

@KRyan And ultimately, this is why my group is bailing on D&D; we milked 3.5 and 4e of all the compromise we were willing to make.

alright bye

Ta!

cya

I believe where I see it differently than you is that I would rather compromise optimization in favor of character concept. A whole DND realm full of people, this one doesn't have to be Guts or Inigo Montoya

@BESW try Legend, no compromises!

FATE is our next dip.

also an excellent one\

ok, really, bye

@LitheOhm I have enjoyed games like that, but my current players need a system where you can't really optimize, or they're going to try.

And since they also love RP, that way lies heartache.

@BESW lol. That sounds rough

I'm trying out Modern, then after that I believe Call of Cthulhu

I loved the introductory chapter of CoC 6th Ed.

nice :) I found an online quickstarter for free

for free legit, lol.

Not a system I want to use, but that chapter was one of the most straightforward, brutally honest introductions to a system I've ever seen.

@BESW Another solution to optimization problem is to have a game of such complexity, with so many things a character could do, that optimization is only possible within a given field, and even then there are many different approaches to it. Ars Magica comes to mind. By not having an assumed game mode of killing things, it lets players explore different character concepts.

@BESW interesting

"This is the game. This is your role in the game. This is the experience we're expecting you to have. This is why we think you'll like it."

@Magician Dirty Dozen type. I like it

@Magician That IS a radical assumption for a game in the RPG environment to attempt.

I don't see such as sidelining. Sure there's cowing to their strengths and letting them shine and not making them fight all fire elementals once the sorceror learns fireball, but to make them win - all the time - if that's DMing, I'm turning in my hat

@LitheOhm Hm? What's that in response to?

@BESW things such as dead magic zones being "arbitrary" "sidelining"

Ah, well. It depends on how they're handled, but anything which is purely at the GM's discretion and entirely negates a PC's capacity has to be handled really carefully or it gets abusive.

sure. Railroading goes both ways though

the DM is the MC to help people enjoy the role-playing game. If some people don't have the skills to make Gandalf then the DM has to take them into consideration at the table

Agreed, but I'd add that it's not solely the GM's responsibility.

As a GM, I bring the rest of the players into the discussion.

also agreed

the Legend PDF is ten MB. 206 pages though... I'm having enough fun cherry-picking the Modern SRD heh

@LitheOhm whoa someone talking about Legend when I'm not here

@mxyzplk: I was thinking it might be an interesting exercise to attempt to convert your party's characters into Legend characters, as an example of the system, and potentially as a useful example for your group specifically since I did recommend Legend in my answer. Would that sort of thing be on topic here?

@LitheOhm I thought about our convo on my way home, and realized there was a pretty significant issue I failed to address earlier: you're conflating "optimization knowledge" with "optimization." Just because you know how to optimize doesn't necessarily mean you have to do so. My knowledge of optimization can allow me to play with a very low-power group, because I know what sorts of things will cause problems in that group and I know how to avoid them.

@KRyan you may have a point. I'll think on that some more

@KRyan I got my copy. Wasn't sure if it was Mongoose or Rule of Cool, but when I found the site I recognized it from our convo

@KRyan Not in the Q&A, but elsewhere (chat, links) sure

@BESW I believe the Stormwind Fallacy is untrue for several trivial reasons. One, as you've noted the drive towards optimization ends up dictating against a vast array of character concepts. Two, optimization isn't just at level-up time, it's generally transfers over to a "win" gamist stance in play, and as people have limited mind-space (and games have limited design space), you can't do it all. It's like the project management triangle (scope, time, resource).

A trivial reading of System Does Matter easily shows the gaps in the reasoning IMO.

@mxyzplk aw, alright. I'll have to find somewhere else to put it then, though I guess chat could work.

@mxyzplk the first point is a bit beyond the scope of the Stormwind Fallacy, as @BESW and I kind of hashed out. Two, ehhh. there's something to that, but I disagree that people are so limited. Also, Stormwind was talking specifically about 3.5, which is a rather gamist system to begin with.

Only if taken as gamist. The beauty of pre-4e D&D versions is that they can all be used with any stance

Sure, 3.5e pushed in that direction, but many groups use it in an alternate way. I think it's only with 4e that it became truly swimming against the current

really feels like trying to put a square peg through a round hole to me

I mean...

If the Next playtest wasn't such a mess I'd be interested in it, as ideally it'll strip out some of the gamist complexity

But I don't really believe they will

this goes back to what Magician and I were saying in the starred comments over there (how did my comment saying people should star his comment get more stars than his?)

3.5 is kind of inherently dishonest

it kind of pays lip service to earlier editions and the playstyles from them

but it doesn't really support them well

When you don't deliberately op it all works fine. In my pirate game the monk is the captain because he's the best of the PCs, where the others are technically "Tier One." No one told him that, so he kills the most

D&D Next looks pretty awful to me; it looks like the worst of all worlds as far as I can tell

but then I've only heard things second-hand

Yeah, too schizophrenic

@mxyzplk more relevantly, no one told them that

They went in with the 'we'll cut it back to like 2e levels of complexity' story but of course as it churns in playtest everyone wants to add stuff

frankly.... like, D&D 4e hit huge new markets that D&D didn't hit before

it was quite successful at the very difficult prospect of expanding the genre

and it still wasn't good enough for Hasbro

That was the intent, but it's not what happened.

It hit the brave new market of the discount bin

maybe

I don't really know that much about 4e

my impression was better than that, but I don't really know

"We'll lure in MMOers by making something like a MMO, but you get to do all the math the slow way yourself! That'll get them!"

PF's beaten them handily in sales each quarter for a couple years now

got a source for that? because I've seen that claimed a lot but no one has ever been able to back it up

Well you happen to be in just the right place for provable assertions... stand by

also, that kind of saddens me because Paizo really doesn't put out a good product, as far as the system goes. their adventure paths may be quite good, and as you pointed out that can be more important, but their system design work is really quite subpar

Yeah, it's a matter of the values they go for. Like their new APG classes. They are the best most flavorful new classes ever, beating every 3.5e splatbook. Their iconic adaptations of cavalier, witch, etc. Are they legally rigorous rules wise? Most folks don't care

Considering that DDI subscriptions contain all crunch 4e has ever published, I find any numbers which omit them to be an inaccurate measure of 4e market presence.

@mxyzplk I really doubt that. the Binder is incredibly cool, the meldshaping classes were very interesting and new, and the Tome of Battle classes are a ton of fun and hit major archetypes

Like right now, as we gear up for Carrion Crown. Our GM is more than happy to disallow various splatbooks and give guidance on our characters to eliminate anything problematic. Having a living GM allows someone to do in 15 minutes what 1000 man-hours of game design can't

@KRyan I did like the tome of battle stuff.

ultimately, I think disallowing material in any 3.x game makes little sense

yeah, that's the difference of approach. Rules serving the world, rules serving the story, rules serving the rules, it's the basic definition of the three stances.

supplements tend to have better design and balance, and in reality by far the biggest draw of 3.x, that overcomes its myriad deficiencies as a system, is the huge amount of available material

@BESW sorry, you're right: I meant banning books wholesale

individual items within those books, absolutely

It's that same amount of material that causes it to be super-optimized to brokenness. "Core only is super powerful!" is really only mildly true and only requires nerfing certain goofy power combos. The more material, the more you can pile a feat and a trait and gear and whatever onto that one thing to min-max it.

(also, at least in 3.5, most of those things that should be banned are found in the PHB or DMG)

@mxyzplk very false statement

All the SuperOp builds out there look like "and then one level in this class from a Forgotten Realms book and then this one gear from the MIC" for a reason

I think you mean "very TRUE statement." :-)

@mxyzplk inaccurate generalization

no, it's not

@mxyzplk I agree. It's supplements that weren't made with one another in mind

top 5 most powerful spells in the game, in order, are contingency, time stop, gate, shapechange, celerity

4/5 are Core

and the only non-Core one is 5th

the top-5 most powerful classes are Archivist, Artificer, Cleric, Druid, and Wizard

3/5 are Core

and the Archivist uses the Cleric list for the most part

Heck, I did it too in my late 3.5 days. Here's my contribution to the malconvoker's handbook, my conjurer/master specialist/paragnostic apostle/malconvoker... geek-related.com/session-summaries/rise-of-the-runelords/…

And in real play, no one gets to where they can use level 9 spells

You know that as well as anyone

Sure those classes are "powerful," but one with all the splats allowed is a lot more powerful by far.

Malconvoker is a very good class but it is by no means the most powerful; it's pretty easy to argue that before level 18 a Wizard 20 is stronger than a Wizard 11/Malconvoker 9, or Wizard 6/Malconvoker 9/Paragnostic Apostle 5 (that one's 5-levels long, yeah?)

again see every charop handbook and superbuild...

@mxyzplk not really "by far," since most spells at any given level will still be Core

@mxyzplk [Citation Needed]

there will be some use from splats, sure

but it's neither integral to their powers nor the majority of the spells used, in many cases

@mxyzplk more relevantly, supplements do more for lower-power classes than they do for higher-power classes

yes, they improve the power of high-power classes, but those classes were already phenomenally powerful and are going to be turning to Core for a lot of their stuff

even with everything involved

but Core didn't really give, say, Bards, Paladins, and Rangers much love

and supplements give those classes in particular a lot of help

Can't kid a kidder. I played 3.5 for its whole lifetime, and 3e, and 2e, and 1e, and basic... I saw what 3.5 ended up like with all the splats and it's why my whole group bailed and won't allow splats any more

@mxyzplk and your anecdotal evidence clashes with both theoretical and the overwhelming majority of empirical evidence

a Wizard with only Core spells will be more powerful than a Wizard who is not allowed any Core spells, at every level

False strawman. Never seen a "no core allowed" game.

@mxyzplk I have, and in fact that particular comparison mentioned has been done, both as an arena match and as a fight your way through this gauntlet thing

Core plus a GM nerfing the specific "infinite growth combos" works just fine.

Yeah... So that proves that CharOp theory removed from real play determines something no one cares about.

color spray, grease, and sleep are better options than anything available to a 1st or 2nd level Fighter

glitterdust is massively better than anything available to a 3rd or 4th level Fighter

haste and fly are obvious

and then we get to 4th-level spells

solid fog = your Fighter has literally no options for countering this.

unless or until he can buy a Ring of Freedom of Movement

contingency is just absurd in its potential, though that might get hit by your bans

and those are at low levels where the disparity is not as large

As our current Pathfinder game proves, however, D&D combat is asymmetrical. "Class vs class" arguments are always artificial and pointless and rely on too many assumptions. Most casters can indeed get fighter-owned unless you posit godlike foreknowledge and just the right loadout for the planned test.

@mxyzplk sigh, no. it's playtesting

@mxyzplk also untrue

at low levels, Wizards can manage a statistical advantage though of course they will be in considerable danger

at mid-to-high levels, a Wizard can beat a must-higher-level Fighter

that test, too, has been run

@Ernir ran several himself

he can tell you how well 20th-level Fighters did against 13th-level Wizards

Well if I ever play a fighter who plans on going around solo and one-on-oneing wizards I'll keep that in mind... But again, real games.