D&D 5th Edition Announced

[AMT]

I don't really see why balance is such a big issue in a role-playing game. In a computer RTS, sure I can see it. One overpowered unit can unbalance a delicate match-up. But in a social game that uses everyone's imaginations where collaborative storytelling is the goal and objective? Whining about wizard's being too powerful strikes me as absurd.

I will say that as far as balance is concerned, the only thing that matters is making sure every player has a chance to shine.

Your last sentence is the crux of the matter though.
In 3rd edition at least, said fighters and whatnot couldn't shine. They could do one thing. Mages and Clerics could do that along with everything else without trying hard. Or sometimes even trying.

Spellcaster over-powering is the easiest thing in the world to deal with.
It's called a Heavy Crossbow/hit them so they have to start making Concentration checks.

Concentration checks are trivially easy for a mage to make. Easier for clerics.
And that's if they even get hit in the first place, which a well prepared mage won't be.

Wizard picking the lock: Waste of a spell slot
Stealth Better then a Rogue: For a short period of time / Uses Spell slot
Scout better then a ranger: For a short period of time / uses spell slot
Punch better then a Fighter: For a short period of time.

How do I deal with these issues?

It's very simple really.

If the wizard keeps using Knock, I toss more locks at them to deal with. He'll run out eventually.
Stealth is handled by traps (doesn't matter if you're sneaky when you stop on a preasure plate), which Wizards are horrible at finding
Scout better then a Ranger - If you mean via familiar, well, familiars make good eating
Punch better then a fighter - More combat encounters. Drain the wizard of offensive spells.

Eventually, the wizard will figure out 'huh, I better save my spells for when I need them'.

Like when they run into the creature that's 3 or 4 CRs above the group level, and they could have really used that Fireball he wasted on a small group of orcs.

Locks: Wands, wands wands. Very small amount of resources consumed and you can keep throwing locks all you like.

Traps/Stealth: Summon creatures to trip traps.

Scout: Summon creatures again. Invisibility, intangibility, etc. Hard to eat what you can't see or touch.
Also, scrying spells and crystal balls. Who needs a person to walk ahead when Clairvoyance lets the mage see what's coming a day in advance? Perfect time for him to choose his spell loadout.

Punching better than a fighter: Wands and Rods.

And using a fireball against something 3 or 4 CR high is stupid.
A true mage's death dealing power comes from save or die/save or suck. Only pyromaniacs or less informed players would use a Fireball over say... Stinking Cloud or an area effect grease (if the enemies can't fly)

[AMT]

Double post please delete

[Mr Bean]

Concentration checks are trivially easy for a mage to make. Easier for clerics.
And that's if they even get hit in the first place, which a well prepared mage won't be.

Poison the bolts, fortitude checks are not trivial for a mage. For 1-6 hit them with Adder venom which is only DC 11 but still a 50/50 chance to be hit with 1d6 con hit, which makes the next hit even worse. Four archers using light crossbows who attack in roughly the same initiative counts. Protection from Arrows is 2nd level but thats not until 4th or 5th level before they have the spell slots to reliably spend on it and not until 6th level that it provides real immunity. And then you just switch back to knives or at 7th level have an enemy caster disenchant the spellcaster first. And as far as Clerics and druids go they are vulnerable to the low level poison arrow spam for awhile. 4d6 con damage can kill most any player if you can connect. Your talking 4 to 24 con damage, and if the first volley does not drop him or you get misses add a second and third volley and he's down for sure.

[AMT]

Concentration checks are trivially easy for a mage to make. Easier for clerics.
And that's if they even get hit in the first place, which a well prepared mage won't be.

Poison the bolts, fortitude checks are not trivial for a mage. For 1-6 hit them with Adder venom which is only DC 11 but still a 50/50 chance to be hit with 1d6 con hit, which makes the next hit even worse. Four archers using light crossbows who attack in roughly the same initiative counts. Protection from Arrows is 2nd level but thats not until 4th or 5th level before they have the spell slots to reliably spend on it and not until 6th level that it provides real immunity. And then you just switch back to knives or at 7th level have an enemy caster disenchant the spellcaster first. And as far as Clerics and druids go they are vulnerable to the low level poison arrow spam for awhile. 4d6 con damage can kill most any player if you can connect. Your talking 4 to 24 con damage, and if the first volley does not drop him or you get misses add a second and third volley and he's down for sure.

Magic Item Compendium pg 121 - Ring of AntiVenom. 1/day as immediate action can get neutralize poison effect. 8000 gp market price.

MIC pg 136 Snakeblood tooth. 3 charges per day - using 3 charges grants immunity to poison for 1 rd. 1350 gp market price

MIC pg 144 Unicorn Pendant - 1/day can cast neutralize poison as swift action. 6000 gp Market Price

There are others in that book too.

DMG pg 263 Periapt of Proof Against Poison. Wearer is immune to poisons. Market proce 27,000 gp

No poison for you!

Though again, you actually have to hit the wizard. And that's if he's not polymorphed into something that is immune to poison.
Or is naturally immune, like a lich.
Or doesn't have his fort saved buffed, cause he WILL have a high con if built optimally.

Also, Windwall is nice to stop ranged attacks. If you can even find the wizard to hit him. Or reach him if flying.

EDIT: Also, protection from arrows provides DR 10/magic against ranged weapons.
Daggers if thrown are still considered ranged weapons I believe as well as thrown.

And con damage from poison doesn't stack. Only the highest damage would apply.

[Spoonist]

Why the nerdwank? If a DM is allowed to powergame as much as the players then none of that matters. A DM that allows you to get all of that equip without trouble is a crappy one.

[AMT]

Why the nerdwank? If a DM is allowed to powergame as much as the players then none of that matters. A DM that allows you to get all of that equip without trouble is a crappy one.

Why the logical fallacies instead of just conceding that the point I made is valid and easily attainable by the rules?

Because it's so hard for a wizard to get craft wand and craft wonderous objects, y'know.
Or to go to a wealth appropriate town and purchase one.

I didn't realize running the game by the rules means you're a crappy DM. My bad. Or that it's nerdwank to point out several things which prove my point. (Way to try and use an appeal to ridicule there)

[S.L.Acker]

Spoonist, you seem to be a very adversarial type of DM. Going out of your way to fuck with any player you see as too powerful. How do you justify this sort of thing in your games? Millions of locks, every archer using poisoned arrows of mage fuckery, just doesn't fit most game worlds. It also fucks over the rest of the party a fair bit as well, especially as by mid levels 8-12 the mage can ignore petty things like that anyway. Worried about most traps, send a Tensers float disk with a heavy chain drag in front of you, those things last an hour at level one and can effectively replace a rogue, by level 8 two castings per day and you're set, better yet spend the xp and get it made permanent along with silence and an illusion of a sneaking rogue. You can even add in a floating eye so that combination of spells effectively replaces a rogue.

Now tell me, in game, why wouldn't a logical wizard with 16+int do a smart thing like that?

If you're really hellbent on not having magic item markets, or auctions, where PC's can find things on their wishlists you're almost forcing either the wizard and cleric to burn xp crafting, or the cleric to be replaced with an artificer. Then you're just being a mean spirited DM if you don't let the artificer craft as it's his main class feature.

[Civil War Man]

Concentration checks are trivially easy for a mage to make. Easier for clerics.
And that's if they even get hit in the first place, which a well prepared mage won't be.

Poison the bolts, fortitude checks are not trivial for a mage. For 1-6 hit them with Adder venom which is only DC 11 but still a 50/50 chance to be hit with 1d6 con hit, which makes the next hit even worse. Four archers using light crossbows who attack in roughly the same initiative counts. Protection from Arrows is 2nd level but thats not until 4th or 5th level before they have the spell slots to reliably spend on it and not until 6th level that it provides real immunity. And then you just switch back to knives or at 7th level have an enemy caster disenchant the spellcaster first. And as far as Clerics and druids go they are vulnerable to the low level poison arrow spam for awhile. 4d6 con damage can kill most any player if you can connect. Your talking 4 to 24 con damage, and if the first volley does not drop him or you get misses add a second and third volley and he's down for sure.

Assuming you go the poison route, that can work if you have a nasty enough poison and the mage has a low constitution. Clerics and druids, on the other hand, have the same fortitude save as a Fighter. Plus, at level 3, both can cast Delay Poison, which allows them to ignore the effects of any poison until long after the combat has ended (it lasts 1 hour/level). Then Druids get Neutralize Poison at level 5, and Clerics at level 7. So for the first two levels, fighters have the same defense against the poison as a divine caster, but then starts to rapidly fall behind as the casters gain spells to add to their equally high save rolls.

That's the problem with downplaying the balance issues. Unless you have an Anti-Magic Field popping up every alternate step, anything that one of the casters is vulnerable to is something that the fighter is just as, if not more, vulnerable to. And even if the Fighter is not as negatively affected by the Anti-Magic Field as the casters, it still sucks for them, because AMF suppresses all enchantments on the fighter's weapons and armor while inside the field.

[Spoonist]

Why the logical fallacies instead of just conceding that the point I made is valid and easily attainable by the rules?

Logical fallacies? Cite them.

Spoonist...etc

Uhm, are you conflating what I said with what Stosk and Bean wrote? Cause you are mixing our points.
As is I really don't know how to respond to you since I did not say those things. Could you reread and repost?

[S.L.Acker]

Sorry, multitasking.

You were simply saying that 'Good DM's do unspecified x to counter balance issues'.

To the others:

You seem to be a very adversarial types of DMs. Going out of your way to fuck with any player you see as too powerful. How do you justify this sort of thing in your games? Millions of locks, every archer using poisoned arrows of mage fuckery, just doesn't fit most game worlds. It also fucks over the rest of the party a fair bit as well, especially as by mid levels 8-12 the mage can ignore petty things like that anyway. Worried about most traps, send a Tensers float disk with a heavy chain drag in front of you, those things last an hour at level one and can effectively replace a rogue, by level 8 two castings per day and you're set, better yet spend the xp and get it made permanent along with silence and an illusion of a sneaking rogue. You can even add in a floating eye so that combination of spells effectively replaces a rogue.

Now tell me, in game, why wouldn't a logical wizard with 16+int do a smart thing like that?

If you're really hellbent on not having magic item markets, or auctions, where PC's can find things on their wishlists you're almost forcing either the wizard and cleric to burn xp crafting, or the cleric to be replaced with an artificer. Then you're just being a mean spirited DM if you don't let the artificer craft as it's his main class feature.

[AMT]

Why the logical fallacies instead of just conceding that the point I made is valid and easily attainable by the rules?

Logical fallacies? Cite them.

Why the nerdwank?

Saying that something that is easy and perfectly within the rules is somehow nerdish wank, thus opening it to ridicule because nerdwank is bad.

And don't try and say nerdwank isn't necessarily an attempt at ridicule, else you wouldn't have anchored the entire response with the term as a leadoff into what you consider a bad DM (RE: one who follows the rules)

[Spoonist]

I didn't realize running the game by the rules means you're a crappy DM. My bad. Or that it's nerdwank to point out several things which prove my point. (Way to try and use an appeal to ridicule there)

Nope. You are picking something out of context.
The balance thingie is not an issue - if you allow powergaming and dislike power disparity why allow a fighter? If you have agreed that power disparity is OK and solve it through roleplaying so that all have fun, then there is no issue. If you don't allow powergaming then why should players run around with any magic item they wish?

Then yes a DM that lets you get whatever magical stuff you want WITHOUT TROUBLE is crappy. Stuff that matters should be earned.
If you can buy such stuff without trouble then so should any antagonists too. This leads down a pathetic path were high INT players are allowed to be smart but high INT monsters are not.
This is where the 25yo ORC modern infantry joke comes from, an evil overlord takes all their pooled treasure and goes wild at the magic item market. Equipping them like a modern army. Etc. So if that injoke is older than you then get off my lawn.

Logical fallacies? Cite them.

Why the nerdwank?

Saying that something that is easy and perfectly within the rules is somehow nerdish wank, thus opening it to ridicule because nerdwank is bad.

Calling that a fallacy is just missing the context.
The nerdwank was the ever lasting specific examples. Hence the next sentance that a powergaming DM trumps a powergaming player any day, no need for nerdwanking spells and items. Whatever the player can come up with and bring a powergaming DM can counter - so the wank is completely irrelevant to the argument. Its not a paper, rock, scissors game - its an rpg.

[AMT]

]Nope. You are picking something out of context.
The balance thingie is not an issue - if you allow powergaming and dislike power disparity why allow a fighter? If you have agreed that power disparity is OK and solve it through roleplaying so that all have fun, then there is no issue. If you don't allow powergaming then why should players run around with any magic item they wish?

Then yes a DM that lets you get whatever magical stuff you want WITHOUT TROUBLE is crappy. Stuff that matters should be earned.
If you can buy such stuff without trouble then so should any antagonists too. This leads down a pathetic path were high INT players are allowed to be smart but high INT monsters are not.
This is where the 25yo ORC modern infantry joke comes from, an evil overlord takes all their pooled treasure and goes wild at the magic item market. Equipping them like a modern army. Etc. So if that injoke is older than you then get off my lawn.

None of which is related to the actual discussion you replied to. Which is, to wit: Mages can easily acquire protection/immunity from poison.

Saying that something that is easy and perfectly within the rules is somehow nerdish wank, thus opening it to ridicule because nerdwank is bad. Calling that a fallacy is just missing the context.
The nerdwank was the ever lasting specific examples. Hence the next sentance that a powergaming DM trumps a powergaming player any day, no need for nerdwanking spells and items. Whatever the player can come up with and bring a powergaming DM can counter - so the wank is completely irrelevant to the argument. Its not a paper, rock, scissors game - its an rpg.

Using the term nerdwank is still an appeal to ridicule. Nor was your post about a powergaming DM by any means. It was in reference to my post before it, which again, to wit: Mages can easily acquire protection/immunity from poison. Not about what a DM can do, but what a player can do to negate the issue brought up by Bean.

Unless you were trying to move the goalposts away from that position. In which case then yes, I guess you were saying it, in which case I can ignore your response for having nothing to do with my actual post.

So which is it, appeal to ridicule and thus a single logical fallacy, or moving the goalposts and thus negating your entire response?

[Grandmaster Jogurt]

"The system doesn't matter"? GMs are equally at fault as the game designers? Look, I understand that the enjoyability of a game depends a lot on the GM and that a bad system run by a good GM is usually better than a decent system run by a clueless GM. But I don't think it's fair to shrug and say responsibility lies equally on both. The game designers are the ones being paid to do their part in this while the GM is just another customer and for every game designer there are tens of thousands of GMs (so while designers have a chance to be the cream of the crop, not so for GMs). One of the two I'm paying and can shop around for while the other is mostly likely someone I'm at least acquainted with, so guess who probably should be held to a higher standard?

[Spoonist]

@AMT
Huh?
What "I replied to" started on page 5
http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 0#p3628140
Solauren said that "Broken characters are as much the fault of the DM as it is the system." Torchship disagreed.
I then disagreed with Torchship saying that a DM has the power to fix stuff that ruins the gameplay for the group and then over the next posts explaining why I thought so.
Stofsk added his 2c.
Slacker joined with his flying summoner example.
To which I replied that those things are not an issue if the DM+groupd have talked it through before.
etc
http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 7#p3628197
http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 4#p3628224
All of that happened before you joined in.

Then you gave a list of spells and items which would counter Stofsk's and Solauren's examples of how to counter a spellcaster. Bean countered your example with more lists. Which you responded with even more lists.
The lists in themselves doesn't matter - whatever the player has the DM can trump. So the lists are irrelevant nerdwank. See? Hence me saying that isn't a fallacy, that is you missing the context.

[Spoonist]

"The system doesn't matter"? GMs are equally at fault as the game designers? ... But I don't think it's fair to shrug and say responsibility lies equally on both.

Nah. If the system stinks - fuck it. Most experienced gamers can read through a rule book and say if the system sucks or not. Sometimes you just need to point out the obvious to the players. Like "This game is very exploitable - if you do I'll stop you, in game if I can - artificially if I can't." Sometimes you just need to say - the campain world is great but the system sucks - let's play anyway, just roll with the suckie parts.
Its the game master who should have read through the system, and its the game master who is in control. Blaming just the player and the system for a broken character doesn't cut it. The GM chose the system, the GM know the setting (s)he wants. The GM allows what characters the players can have. Of course (s)he shares the blame for any characters that breaks the fun in the setting and system (s)he chose. If you notice a broken character mid-play talk about it for goodness sake.

But I think this comes from different sort of experiences.
In my gaming circles we meta talk about the setting before playing anything new. The game master goes through the setting and the feeling, the players responds etc. That way everyone knows the basic premise.
So in my world, if the game master after that talk would allow a broken character - then yes he is at fault.
So if he picks up D&D and says - full tilt powergaming is OK. Then that's how it is. Roll with it.
If he instead picks up D&D and says - no fucking über spellcasters spoiling the rests fun. Then that's how it is.

If you do not have these sort of dialog before a new game - then you are simply up for a world of hurt where everyone thinks their angle is the correct one. Which is bound to leave someone grumpy. Like saying, lets play a D&D scenario and one player thinks its all out powergaming, the other thinks its low key and the DM pulls out 4e wow boardgaming. Won't work.

Same thing playing RPG scenarios at conventions. First I go through the setting, high fantasy, realistic, modern, action-based, etc. Then as GM I ask the players how they want things to be. Full system, free system, powergaming, only rpg, more dungeon bashing, whatever. Then you play to the audience, its all about having fun anyway.
Sometimes the system sucks and the players want to play the system "straight", then as a GM its up to me to avoid the suckiest parts to not spoil the fun/mood/magic.

[Civil War Man]

A good fanfic writer can close the plotholes in a movie's story. That does not excuse a movie studio if the writers, directors, and editors come up with an incoherent mess of a movie.

You miss the point of the lists by casually dismissing them as nerdwank. They illustrate how a DM has to jump through hoops and come up with insanely contrived situations in order to allow a fighter to contribute as much as a wizard or druid in a given situation. Which can backfire anyway, since the wizard or druid can counter with a certain spell or one of half a dozen items unless the DM jumps through even more hoops to arbitrarily deny them use of that spell or item.

And the problems can happen accidentally. You get a group of new players together. One of them decides to play a fighter. One decides to play a druid. The druid looks at what he gets and says "Oh, I get a pet. Wolves are cool. I choose the wolf." The fighter is now mostly superfluous unless he knows how to min-max or you arbitrarily forbid the druid from having a wolf companion.

It's all well and good for a DM to ban stuff they don't want in their game, but why should sole responsibility of making the system playable and fair to all players in the group fall to them? Why should they have to fight the rules in order to make it work as intended?

[S.L.Acker]

"The system doesn't matter"? GMs are equally at fault as the game designers? ... But I don't think it's fair to shrug and say responsibility lies equally on both.

Nah. If the system stinks - fuck it. Most experienced gamers can read through a rule book and say if the system sucks or not. Sometimes you just need to point out the obvious to the players. Like "This game is very exploitable - if you do I'll stop you, in game if I can - artificially if I can't." Sometimes you just need to say - the campain world is great but the system sucks - let's play anyway, just roll with the suckie parts.
Its the game master who should have read through the system, and its the game master who is in control. Blaming just the player and the system for a broken character doesn't cut it. The GM chose the system, the GM know the setting (s)he wants. The GM allows what characters the players can have. Of course (s)he shares the blame for any characters that breaks the fun in the setting and system (s)he chose. If you notice a broken character mid-play talk about it for goodness sake.

But I think this comes from different sort of experiences.
In my gaming circles we meta talk about the setting before playing anything new. The game master goes through the setting and the feeling, the players responds etc. That way everyone knows the basic premise.
So in my world, if the game master after that talk would allow a broken character - then yes he is at fault.
So if he picks up D&D and says - full tilt powergaming is OK. Then that's how it is. Roll with it.
If he instead picks up D&D and says - no fucking über spellcasters spoiling the rests fun. Then that's how it is.

If you do not have these sort of dialog before a new game - then you are simply up for a world of hurt where everyone thinks their angle is the correct one. Which is bound to leave someone grumpy. Like saying, lets play a D&D scenario and one player thinks its all out powergaming, the other thinks its low key and the DM pulls out 4e wow boardgaming. Won't work.

Same thing playing RPG scenarios at conventions. First I go through the setting, high fantasy, realistic, modern, action-based, etc. Then as GM I ask the players how they want things to be. Full system, free system, powergaming, only rpg, more dungeon bashing, whatever. Then you play to the audience, its all about having fun anyway.
Sometimes the system sucks and the players want to play the system "straight", then as a GM its up to me to avoid the suckiest parts to not spoil the fun/mood/magic.

What about groups that started with 3.5 and have players that don't like changing systems that often? Or the fact that many people will know about D&D 3.5 but not know about, obscure next to D&D, fanstasy game #347? Frankly there are a glut of worse systems out there and you need to already know a fair bit about RPG's and know where to ask around at to find a system that exactly fits your style of play.

Also, any spell caster will be powerful next to a fighter and, frankly, D&D doesn't function as intended without spell casters. So unless you nerf and straight jacket the spell casters to make the fighter worth using you end up with a game that doesn't work. This is a point you seem to ignore about attempting to play D&D.

[Erik von Nein]

This also ignores the imbalance inherent to the system, which kind of sucks if you don't want to play a caster.

Huh? Solauren said, that DM's are partly to be blamed for allowing broken characters. That is true regardless of setting or system. Whatever did your post have to do with that? The system can be as broken as the US constitution, it does not matter. The DM is still supreme being of the universe. Its his job to keep the fun for all.
If the DM can't handle spellcasters without them breaking the fun, then he shouldn't allow spellcaster characters or vice versa only allow them, its really simple.

I was responding to you, but the general attitude seems to be that the system isn't inherently broken, because the DM can just handwave/ban certain aspects that destroy party balance. Of course the DM can, but that requires a huge grasp of system knowledge that it becomes tedious to maintain, and still doesn't address the balance issues inherent to the game. Which, if we're discussing a topic about designing a new system for play should be a priority.

[Spoonist]

A good fanfic writer can close the plotholes in a movie's story. That does not excuse a movie studio if the writers, directors, and editors come up with an incoherent mess of a movie.

What's with the bad anaologies? The fanfic writer in this case, he chose the bad fucking movie, ie yes he has to handle the plotholes inherent in the movie.
If he doesn't handle the plotholes - then again - he holds part of the blame.
This shouldn't be difficult to grasp.

You miss the point of the lists by casually dismissing them as nerdwank. They illustrate how a DM has to jump through hoops and come up with insanely contrived situations in order to allow a fighter to contribute as much as a wizard or druid in a given situation.

Nope, again the specific nerdwank doesn't matter when talking genericly about how RPGs function. If the system spoils your fun - fuck the system. It can't be simpler than that.
D&D is a broken system, it has been so since before Gygax grew an ego. 4e is even more broken.
Either deal with it or move on. Sometimes it can be fun to do an all exploits dungeon crawl then D&D is fun. If you want something else, either fix it or move on. If you think D&D is broken - then fuck D&D and get some other system.
The specifics in themselves doesn't matter.

You get a group of new players together. One of them decides to play a fighter. One decides to play a druid. The druid looks at what he gets and says "Oh, I get a pet. Wolves are cool. I choose the wolf." The fighter is now mostly superfluous unless he knows how to min-max or you arbitrarily forbid the druid from having a wolf companion.

What's up with all the superfluos examples? We all know the game dammit. This isn't a boardgame, talk it out if you think that's an issue. Then do whatever adjustments needed to have fun. If that means nerfing the druid or boosting the fighter - just do it.
Just whining about it won't make it more fun.

It's all well and good for a DM to ban stuff they don't want in their game, but why should sole responsibility of making the system playable and fair to all players in the group fall to them? Why should they have to fight the rules in order to make it work as intended?

Because he chose the system and the setting? Because he is the boss of the universe? Who else would fix things? Divine intervention?
Its really simple. The players don't have the power to fix things like this. Its not like the fighter in your example can just say "from now on I do double damage to compensate for the druids dog".
So talk about it - let the GM fix what needs fixing - have fun.
Its not about the system - its about having fun. If the system fails to be fun - fix it or fuck it.
Simple.

[Spoonist]

Soon I'll simply have to ignore all latecomers and stick with those with whom the discussion started.
Its not like the latecomers contribute any new angle anyway.

What about groups that started with 3.5 and have players that don't like changing systems that often? Or the fact that many people will know about D&D 3.5 but not know about, obscure next to D&D, fanstasy game #347? Frankly there are a glut of worse systems out there and you need to already know a fair bit about RPG's and know where to ask around at to find a system that exactly fits your style of play.

Wait, wait, wait. Are you really asking what to do with a broken system if the group started with 3.5 and doesn't want to change systems? Then you know the system, you know the world, you know how broken it is. Talk to eachother, agree on what is fun and what is not. Fix it - have fun.
Whining won't help anything at all, since you have chosen to stick with that specific system.
In your example the DM is truly at fault for any broken characters.

Also, any spell caster will be powerful next to a fighter and, frankly, D&D doesn't function as intended without spell casters. So unless you nerf and straight jacket the spell casters to make the fighter worth using you end up with a game that doesn't work. This is a point you seem to ignore about attempting to play D&D.

Ignore? Its a moot point, I've pointed that out several times. Talk about it - if you think fighters are useless, why use them? If you think it doesn't work without spellcasters, then again talk about, say that powergaming is ok and that all should be spellcasters.
I've played RPGs for 32 years now and D&D for some 20ish of those. It simply isn't an issue if the DM + players meta talk about it.
That is true with the teenagers in my circle as well as the old timers like me. Just like I said before you can even have fun with the power disparity or with how broken stuff is.
Just chose your setting and roll with it. If something isn't working - talk about it - fix it and move on.

I've been on all sides, I've played the barbarian when everyone else was spellcasters, I've played the wizard when everyone else was thieves and fighter derivates, but mostly I've DMd. I know the flaws of the system, therefore I talk to my players about the flaws. Then we make some choices how we want things to be and move on to the fun.
Why you don't is just strange to me.
D&D is broken - roll with it.

[Erik von Nein]

D&D is broken - roll with it.

So, then, what are you arguing? Everyone agrees; 3.5 is broken for party balance and a DM can handle it by various means. Is everyone just talking past each other by this point?

[Spoonist]

D&D is broken - roll with it.

So, then, what are you arguing? Everyone agrees; 3.5 is broken for party balance and a DM can handle it by various means. Is everyone just talking past each other by this point?

I think so.
I were defending Solaurens view that the GM is partly responsible for broken characters. I were not trying to make amends for D&D being a broken system.

[Civil War Man]

Who else would fix things?

How about the developers? The only reason I'm bringing up these examples is the bizarre hostility some posters are having towards the idea that maybe WOTC should try to make D&D less broken.

Nobody will argue that it's not the responsibility of the DM to make the story inclusive to all players. The contention is over whether it's also the DM's responsibility to fix the broken mechanics in the system. That's all well and good for someone who has been playing for decades and has the free time and disposable income to invest in and explore a wide variety of systems and the experience to catch and compensate for game breakers. Not everyone is in that situation.

EDIT: And yeah, everyone is probably talking past each other.

[Kingmaker]

edit: nevermind. Civil War Man said what I meant to, and better. Can a mod delete this?