Quote from: Seanchai;286818It's a nice try, but then the book goes on to outline what to do if you're using unofficial minis and what to do "In other cases..." In other words, it covers all possible cases.

And what it says about using unofficial figures is:  Don't.  Anyone with a modicum of reading comprehension would see that paragraph for what it is.  A marketing blurb to buy TSR product.

This paragraph alone shows why there is no further need to address your position.  Hence, as you are unwilling or unable to grasp the simplest of concepts, I will let you blather on to an empty house.  As I stated before, your points have no merit, nor have you provided any support for them.

Good luck pointing out the rules, as written, Seanchai. If they don't fit their fond memories they'll just appeal to authority and say that it's not the way it was played at X's games.

Quote from: Seanchai;286818A dictionary doesn't say "behind" and "rear" are the same thing?

Note that "behind" is used in the Player's Handbook while the more detailed combat resolution rules which include determining miniature facing are in the Dungeon Master's Handbook use "rear."

This is in keeping with the practice in early (A)D&D books of separating "player knowledge" from "referee knowledge." The more general statement is in the players' book, while the specifics are in the referees' book.

Quote from: counterspin;286791I can't believe there are people who swear that there isn't the capacity for the wizard to be out of control powerful in 3e.  You're welcome to claim that it doesn't happen in the real world, but to say that it's not possible within the rulebook is ridiculous.  HP doesn't mean much when you're invisible and flying.  Being invisible has the added bonus of pretty much copying the core of the rogue's shtick.  And why would you care about dealing damage when you can just kill something outright?

I know for a fact that once you start adding in all the splat book feats, spellcasters of all sorts can break the game big time.  I had a party get up to 17th level and the wizard was by far the most powerful.  I had to plan encounters totally geared towards neutralizing him if I wanted it to be challenging at all for the group.  After that, I'd never run another 3e game that wasn't core rules only.

Sorry, man, but some of the biggest most broken material is in the core rules.

Candles of invocation, natural spell, gate, shapechange, planar binding, greater scrying, fabricate, etc.

I mean, the supplements had some really CRAZY stuff like the Planar Shepherd but the core really set the precedent.

Edit: Seriously, 3E was a great game BUT only for the intended players does it work without a hitch.

Quote from: mhensley;286825I know for a fact that once you start adding in all the splat book feats, spellcasters of all sorts can break the game big time.  I had a party get up to 17th level and the wizard was by far the most powerful.  I had to plan encounters totally geared towards neutralizing him if I wanted it to be challenging at all for the group.  After that, I'd never run another 3e game that wasn't core rules only.

Fair enough, I have never been a very big collector of splats.

However, I still ask:  Can the wizard be built to do anything useful aside from impinging on the other characters?  In other words, if the wizard is built with the intent to take over the roles of the other party members, will they be able to contribute in any other meaningful way?

Quote from: The Shaman;286824Note that "behind" is used in the Player's Handbook while the more detailed combat resolution rules which include determining miniature facing are in the Dungeon Master's Handbook use "rear."

This is in keeping with the practice in early (A)D&D books of separating "player knowledge" from "referee knowledge." The more general statement is in the players' book, while the specifics are in the referees' book.

Indicating that the players need never so much as put their hands on a mini of any kind, and the DM, who would need to keep track of many opponents in addition to the players, would be given suggestions for possibly making that easier.  Again, using the tools at hand and in a language that would be most familiar to the core audience, namely wargamers.  As an added bonus, TSR got to slip in an ad for their own line of miniatures.

But that is obviously a far cry from 'required'.  In fact, the simple diagram included in the DMG undermined even that slight advantage.  15 orcs, 5 players, 3 orcs per player, one attack is against the shield, two are not.  Which do you attack, the one to the left, the right, or in front?  In direct opposition to:

"Because in 4e, you don't need actual minis and a mat. Moreover and more to the point, the Powers rules work just fine if you jot people's positions down on hex or graph paper..."

Again, the powers rules don't work just fine if you neglect to mark positioning in some manner.

Which isn't to say that (A)D&D combat didn't occasionally get complicated to the point of needing notes or positioning.  Just that it is hardly the default.  No matter how many times the word 'flank' crops up.

Quote from: DeadUematsu;286831Sorry, man, but some of the biggest most broken material is in the core rules.

Candles of invocation, natural spell, gate, shapechange, planar binding, greater scrying, fabricate, etc.

I mean, the supplements had some really CRAZY stuff like the Planar Shepherd but the core really set the precedent.

Edit: Seriously, 3E was a great game BUT only for the intended players does it work without a hitch.

Yeah, the core has some broken stuff but the monsters and modules are balanced for core. They aren't balanced for the extra stuff.  That's why it really breaks down.  It then becomes an arms race between the players and dm's to see who can weasel the rules the most.

Quote from: StormBringer;286834Fair enough, I have never been a very big collector of splats.

However, I still ask:  Can the wizard be built to do anything useful aside from impinging on the other characters?  In other words, if the wizard is built with the intent to take over the roles of the other party members, will they be able to contribute in any other meaningful way?

I didn't have that problem, but the other players were reduced to holding the wizard's coat while he destroyed everything.

Quote from: mhensley;286861I didn't have that problem, but the other players were reduced to holding the wizard's coat while he destroyed everything.

I will have to twiddle one up then to see what it looks like.  Honestly, I can't see a wizard that is designed solely to overshadow the other characters can be worth a tinker's dam for doing anything else.

Quote from: mhensley;286861I didn't have that problem, but the other players were reduced to holding the wizard's coat while he destroyed everything.

The issue here was resistances (Damage resistance keyed to particular materials particularly) and defenses like intangibility. Wizards could sidestep spell resistance by using conjurations (which are unaffected by SR) or energy admixture or an alternate spell selection to adjust their spells to fight any given monster or enemy, but nobody else really had that freedom.

Often my high level campaigns had a significant amount of time where the players dedicated themselves to intelligence gathering on an enemy they planned to defeat, trying to figure out what his weaknesses were. Or for planar adventuring they would spend time researching what types of weaponry they would need (for example to fight demons vs fighting devils, vs fighting yugoloths). Which was cool in a way, but the wizard still dominated.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;286953The issue here was resistances (Damage resistance keyed to particular materials particularly) and defenses like intangibility. Wizards could sidestep spell resistance by using conjurations (which are unaffected by SR) or energy admixture or an alternate spell selection to adjust their spells to fight any given monster or enemy, but nobody else really had that freedom.

Yep, this was exactly the problem.  That damned energy substitution nonsense coupled with the sonic type not being resisted by almost anything led to major breakage of the rules.  Also those orb spells which bypass SR piss me off too.

I had to resort to fun things like anti-magic fields and enemy spellcasters loading up on feeblemind.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;286953Often my high level campaigns had a significant amount of time where the players dedicated themselves to intelligence gathering on an enemy they planned to defeat, trying to figure out what his weaknesses were. Or for planar adventuring they would spend time researching what types of weaponry they would need (for example to fight demons vs fighting devils, vs fighting yugoloths). Which was cool in a way, but the wizard still dominated.

My high level campaigns (all various TSR D&D editions) generally had far less combat than lower level campaigns and the non-magic-user characters usually had powerful magic items of their own that let them do all sorts of spiffy stuff that a magic-user could not easily duplicate with a spell or two.  Magic was common in my high level worlds, so naturally non-mages had developed ways of using magic to their advantage without having to be a wizard. So I never had a problem with PC wizards being so powerful they overwhelmed every other PC.

Quote from: RandallS;286975My high level campaigns (all various TSR D&D editions) generally had far less combat than lower level campaigns and the non-magic-user characters usually had powerful magic items of their own that let them do all sorts of spiffy stuff that a magic-user could not easily duplicate with a spell or two.  Magic was common in my high level worlds, so naturally non-mages had developed ways of using magic to their advantage without having to be a wizard. So I never had a problem with PC wizards being so powerful they overwhelmed every other PC.

What I'm talking about is a very specific issue to D&D3e. The TSR versions of D&D had their own specific issues.

Quote from: StormBringer;286798For one thing, I didn't say it wasn't possible.  What I said was, it doesn't sound credible.  Now, if you have one handy that you would like to post here, feel free, but I will posit that the problem isn't with wizards.  I'm fairly certain that having one of these characters in your party means you are playing the game with a douchebag, not that there is a fundamental problem with Magic Users.

The system exists without players, or even characters.  If you can pawn off stuff with the excuse "but no one really does that," you can't discuss a system in meaningful terms.  That why I ceded the possibility that such things never happen in reality on the outset.  However, I have accidentally produced wildly overpowered spellcasters.  I've seen other people do it.  This happens because the tools provided to full spellcasters are wildly more powerful than those given to other classes.  And I'm afraid to say this is an impossible conversation.  If you've read the 3e spell list and you don't see it, you're never going to see it.  If you bring up HP and think that's important to a wizard, you'll never see it. Shrug.