Poll

Which of the classes would you NOT allow in a game that you were DMing because they are "too game-breaking"?  (assume they are optimized, and the campaign would run up to 20th level)

Incantatrix (Broken primarily because of metamagic effect buffing cheese but get alot of other really good benefits on top of it)
Rainbow servant(full casting progression by raw) 10/5x full casting class (Broken for access to all cleric spells, most evocations, and domain spells spontaneously)
Shadowcraft mage (broken because of access to any conjuration/summoning/calling evocation quasi-spontaneously and doesn't have to pay spell component costs)
Any Cleric with DMM:etc but mainly persist (broken for being able to persist its highest level buffs at low level)
Thrallherd (broken for the same reasons leadership is broken, only its better)
Anima Mage (broken for being able to persist as above, but also is a full caster-1 AND has access to decent level binder magic)
None, all of these builds are fine, only builds that create infinite loops, nigh infinite abilities, like pun-pun etc are truly broken
Other, and let me post it, and tell you why.

Author Topic: "broken" builds?  (Read 9234 times)

Offline darqueseid

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 593
  • I'm new!
    • View Profile
"broken" builds?
« on: July 09, 2012, 01:09:34 PM »
Please vote for classes that you would take out of your games if you were DM.  Please post any comments questions or additional builds you might want to add.

Offline phaedrusxy

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 10708
  • The iconic spambot
    • View Profile
Re: "broken" builds?
« Reply #1 on: July 09, 2012, 01:24:25 PM »
It really depends on what kind of game I'm going for. I DM some games where I ban all spellcasters, basically, and others where I allow pretty much anything. Of the things listed, I think Incantatrix and Thrallherd are easily the most powerful, with Thrallherd naturally being the most powerful if both are allowed at the same time (as you can be a Thrallherd with an Incantatrix Thrall...).

DMM only gets totally insane when you allow stacking nightsticks or other ways to pile on oodles of extra turning attempts, and Anima Mage is even lower down because of even more limited numbers of free metamagic buffs. While Shadowcraft Mage allows for extreme versatility, I don't think it normally approaches the same levels of overpoweredness, barring extreme spell level cheese (like applying DMM: Heighten to Silent Image... :P ). Rainbow Servant is hardly a blip on the radar compared to this other stuff, IMO. It only kicks in at 15th level, by which point the Ur-Priest has already been throwing around Miracles for a level and pimp-slapping Pit Fiends for free Wishes. In fact, Ur-Priests should definitely be on the list if Rainbow Servants and Shadowcraft Mages are.
I don't pee messages into the snow often , but when I do , it's in Cyrillic with Fake Viagra.  Stay frosty my friends.

Offline darqueseid

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 593
  • I'm new!
    • View Profile
Re: "broken" builds?
« Reply #2 on: July 09, 2012, 02:01:16 PM »
The ability to eschew material and XP components for the SCM doesn't bother you?  Free shadow miracles? or free demiplanes... or free shadow cookies?   

Also being able to cast a spell level or two above what a normal caster isn't bad?

you probably have a point about ur priest though

Offline phaedrusxy

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 10708
  • The iconic spambot
    • View Profile
Re: "broken" builds?
« Reply #3 on: July 09, 2012, 02:13:25 PM »
The ability to eschew material and XP components for the SCM doesn't bother you?  Free shadow miracles? or free demiplanes... or free shadow cookies?   
Miracle isn't a wizard/sorcerer spell. I don't think that a specific character gaining a domain with it suddenly makes it one. So I don't think SCMs can emulate it, ever. And High component costs are stupid, anyway. So no...

Quote
Also being able to cast a spell level or two above what a normal caster isn't bad?
That's kind of crossing the line on what I'd consider "extreme spell-level cheese". I still don't think it quite approaches the levels of abusiveness possible with Thrallherd and Incantatrix, though, and I've played all three.

The Incantatrix can basically persist every buff spell you even care about on every member of the party, with no spell level adjustment. And the Thrallherd can do everything anyone else can do... all at the same time, basically.
« Last Edit: July 09, 2012, 02:15:50 PM by phaedrusxy »
I don't pee messages into the snow often , but when I do , it's in Cyrillic with Fake Viagra.  Stay frosty my friends.

Offline betrayor

  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 474
  • Monitoring...
    • View Profile
Re: "broken" builds?
« Reply #4 on: July 09, 2012, 02:33:32 PM »
Also where is the Dwermokeeper?
While the cheesy thing is supernatural spell it has many nice abilities too....
And Planar Shepherd he is arguably even more broken....

Offline SneeR

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1531
  • Sneering
    • View Profile
Re: "broken" builds?
« Reply #5 on: July 09, 2012, 05:45:21 PM »
It really depends on the context of my players.  Most of the people I game with are woefully inept at chargen and D&D rules. I specifically set one of my players up with a wildshape ranger-->MoMF-->Warshaper//Warmage-->Rainbow Savant in a gestalt game because I knew more options would let him be more creative, and he would never even dream to attempt to break the game.
A smile from ear to ear
3.5 is disappointingly flawed.

Offline Unbeliever

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2288
  • gentleman gamer
    • View Profile
Re: "broken" builds?
« Reply #6 on: July 10, 2012, 10:17:33 AM »
In isolation, all of this stuff is fine.  It just depends on the build and relative power level of the campaign.  I don't love Incantatrix b/c I think it makes things too easy, but that's my only real complaint. 

The only thing I consistently ban is Leadership.  It's the greatest feat in the game, and that irks me.  Even Thrallherd doesn't bother me nearly as much b/c you at least lose something (suboptimal feat pre-req, caster level). 

Offline Jackinthegreen

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 6176
  • I like green.
    • View Profile
Re: "broken" builds?
« Reply #7 on: July 10, 2012, 10:36:00 AM »
Most things that are (nigh) infinite I'd have a problem with since it breaks the game.  Other things that break the game include a Warforged Pugilist with Improved Resiliency and Shake it Off, effectively making him immune to hit point damage entirely.  A creative DM can work around that a bit, but it's just not in the spirit of a normal game.

Offline Prime32

  • Over-Underling
  • Retired Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 2914
    • View Profile
Re: "broken" builds?
« Reply #8 on: July 10, 2012, 12:42:32 PM »
a Warforged Pugilist with Improved Resiliency and Shake it Off
A what with what now? :???

Offline Wiggins

  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 314
  • I love my country as much as I hate patriotism
    • View Profile
Re: "broken" builds?
« Reply #9 on: July 10, 2012, 12:46:40 PM »
a Warforged Pugilist with Improved Resiliency and Shake it Off
A what with what now? :???

By using a stupidly broken Dragon Mag fighter variant that takes all damage as non-lethal (what kind of god of boxing is THIS????), a warforged can easily become immune to all damage

Offline oslecamo

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 10080
  • Creating monsters for my Realm of Darkness
    • View Profile
    • Oslecamo's Custom Library (my homebrew)
Re: "broken" builds?
« Reply #10 on: July 10, 2012, 12:53:57 PM »
I actually have a rainbow mage in a game of mine right now, but only allowed because the player also took War Weaver that also delayed his spellcasting


Cleric DMM only gets really bad if you allow the absurd interpretation that nightsticks stack with themselves just because it would be convenient.

Shadowcraft mage and Incantrix share the same brokeness of basically bypassing costs that are there for good reasons whitout really paying anything in return.

Trallherd may lose a CL, but geting his personal customizeable and easily replaceable army is basically as borked as you get short of infinite loops.

In a similar note, anything that can easily copy abilities from others and/or geting them as permanent minions or is probably a good candidate for broken.

Offline darqueseid

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 593
  • I'm new!
    • View Profile
Re: "broken" builds?
« Reply #11 on: July 11, 2012, 11:30:01 AM »
a Warforged Pugilist with Improved Resiliency and Shake it Off
A what with what now? :???

By using a stupidly broken Dragon Mag fighter variant that takes all damage as non-lethal (what kind of god of boxing is THIS????), a warforged can easily become immune to all damage

This trick would fall under the "only infinite loops etc.. question"  I know its not specifically mentioned, but it seems like being able to take infinite damage (by being immune) of any type is broken in this vein. 

Offline awaken_D_M_golem

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7639
  • classique style , invisible tail
    • View Profile
Re: "broken" builds?
« Reply #12 on: July 13, 2012, 02:59:11 PM »
Cleric w DMM Heighten is most of the time borkt.

Cleric w DMM Persist say Divine Power, is doing
that instead of a more complicated +19 BAB build. 
It's just taking up build infrastructure.

Cleric w DMM Quicken , perhaps could have
a bad choice of which spell to quicken.
Then it's just taking up too much build infrastructure.

Non Full Fester w Thrallherd and reasonable
limits isn't that bad.  Lurk or PsyWar or PsyRogue
into Thrallherd is not a good combo.

(opinions / easily abused anyway)
Your codpiece is a mimic.

Offline TC X0 Lt 0X

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ***
  • Posts: 852
  • The TC Storywriter
    • View Profile
Re: "broken" builds?
« Reply #13 on: July 13, 2012, 04:55:09 PM »
As a DM I have no qualms with such builds, as I have used such builds in the past with other DMs.
I would in fact encourage it, because as a DM, I am not sure how well I would be able to control my own optimization tendencies, and to be fair I worry less about the class features of these classes and more about actual spellcasting of classes in general, as that is the real threat behind these classes.

But then again I don't DM 3.5 all that often, and if I did, it would likely be e6 Gestalt from here on out, or perhaps Partial Gestalt based on class tiers similar to that described in the Tier list thread.
Im really bad at what I do.
A+

Offline caelic

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 517
  • fnord
    • View Profile
Re: "broken" builds?
« Reply #14 on: July 16, 2012, 09:35:27 AM »
Rainbow Servant at full casting--not because it's overpowered, but because I severely dislike the kind of selective rules-lawyering necessary to make that claim.

I still remember the whole "By the rules, it's full casting!"  "But later, foreign language editions clearly show that it's not full casting, and by the rules, the most recent printing takes precedence!"  "Those don't count because I think the rules only mean the most recent ENGLISH printing!" debate.  Oy.
« Last Edit: July 16, 2012, 09:37:00 AM by caelic »

Offline darqueseid

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 593
  • I'm new!
    • View Profile
Re: "broken" builds?
« Reply #15 on: July 16, 2012, 02:25:59 PM »
I thought the later foreign language editions showed that it was full casting?  I'm not sure, but I thought that had been offered up as proof that it was...

Additionally, text trumps tables is pretty well established.

its contradictory at any rate, the text says one thing, the table another. 

but your point is taken, because of the misprint (either way) it is annoying to have to argue it... 

Offline Jackinthegreen

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 6176
  • I like green.
    • View Profile
Re: "broken" builds?
« Reply #16 on: July 16, 2012, 02:47:42 PM »
Remind me where it says to use the most recent printing for a book?

Offline caelic

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 517
  • fnord
    • View Profile
Re: "broken" builds?
« Reply #17 on: July 18, 2012, 12:21:52 PM »
I thought the later foreign language editions showed that it was full casting?  I'm not sure, but I thought that had been offered up as proof that it was...


No clue what the most recent foreign editions say; at the time of the discussion, the most recent printing was the German one, which clearly showed partial casting.  People announced that it didn't count because it was foreign.  If they later turned around and announced that OTHER foreign editions DO count because they show full casting, that's another example of the double standard I'm talking about.

Quote
Additionally, text trumps tables is pretty well established.


Be honest here, though: if the table had shown full casting and the text had not, how many people do you think would have been arguing strenuously for "text trumps table?"  A lot fewer, I suspect...and that kind of selective invoking of the RAW (only when it's to the player's advantage) is exactly what I prefer not to have at my table.   




Offline darqueseid

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 593
  • I'm new!
    • View Profile
Re: "broken" builds?
« Reply #18 on: July 18, 2012, 01:37:45 PM »
Strange, I usually tend to rule with whatever is to the players advantage as a general rule.  Sure I don't let them get out of hand completely but it is thier game as much as it is mine even if I am the DM, and what works for them also works for me. 

If I'm being honest text trumps table has been used to settle other arguments and not in the players favor.  I'm pretty sure if the situation were reversed it would still be an argument, but I'd be on the other side of it.

Offline PlzBreakMyCampaign

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 1962
  • Immune to Critical Hits as a Fairness Elemental
    • View Profile
Re: "broken" builds?
« Reply #19 on: July 18, 2012, 10:11:05 PM »
Dirty Handbook fixes. I was (been busy) creating a PrC Tier rebalancing thread. I wonder if I posted it in my dump...