Handbook of Broken discussion thread

401 posts / 0 new
Last post
The Handbook of Broken (Discussion thread)

This is intended to be a repository for broken game elments (powers, items, features, combos). The hope is that it will serve several purposes:



  • Catalog given exploits, to help avoid continual rediscovery.

  • Give credit to those that push the theoretical limits

  • Give DMs a good sense of what might cause problems.

  • Serve as a focal point for suggesting fixes.



What this should NOT be is a list of elements to ban. Particularly in the Bent section, the elements can likely be used in real games and all will still have fun. Even in the broken sections, someone could have all the elements of the combo, and as long as they don't/can't use it there isn't a problem.

The actual handbook is kept in the wiki, here

To add an element, please have

  • A clear and concise explanation of the exploit/combo.

  • A reference to the original thread/post/finder.

  • How broken is it? (see below)




I'd appreciate a suggested house rule for a DM to use if the exploit is causing problems in their game.

If an element in the combination already does infinite damage, then feel free to add other expressions of that element that also do infinite damage... But please ignore new versions that do less damage. My goal is to catalog the most broken exploit of game elements, not to list every possible possibly overpowered expression.

References:



The Definitions of Broken
For this, I'm attempting to use definitions from sCRuLooSe, although I've changed them slighly.


Broken


Broken things make the game unplayable. In sCRuLooSe's post, that includes "Shattered" and "Fractured"



  • Rules that don't function (Brutal 5 dagger, Brutal 4 Vorpal Dagger).

  • Any use of the word "infinite". Or "Effectively Infinite"

  • Killing an at-level solo with a single encounter power.

  • Killing an at-level solo with your every-round DPR.

  • Killing all normal monsters in the encounter with a single encounter power.





Bent


Bent things change the game fundamentally. Experienced players are fundamentally playing a different game than beginners. In sCRuLooSe's post, that includes "Bent", and possibly some of "Overpowered"



  • Killing an at-level solo in a single turn.

  • Killing an at-level elite in a single turn without using daily powers.

  • Kills all minions with a minor and no rolls.




As an example, A nova that can kill an at-level standard monster on average by expending your action point, 2 encounter powers, a daily power, and the standard action from a party member might be overpowered (or might not), but isn't even Bent by my definition. But if it can kill an elite or a Solo with that resource expenditure, then I consider it Bent.


Overpowered


Overpowered options gives significantly higher than expected value. It effectively removes options, but does not fundamentally change the game.

What is overpowered will vary greatly between games. One game's overpowered is another games base assumptions. Overpowered only creates problems when it causes a power disparity between players that causes ill-will, or when it creates a difference in assumptions between the DM and the players that causes ill-will.

I will ignore most things that are "overpowered", as I have a hard time seeing dividing lines between overpowered and optimized. As a rule of thumb, if the DM can compensate without involving the players it's not worth mentioning in this handbook.


What I want in this thread

  • References to new issues not currently in the handbook

    • Why it works

    • How broken it is

    • A reference to the discoverer



  • Updates/Clarifications

    • New twists

    • making it clearer how/why it works

    • Suggested House rules for any given issue

    • Point out when an update fixes something...



  • Tell me when I'm wrong (but see below.  Link to the why, please don't hash it out in this thread)


What I'd rather not have in this thread

  • Rules debates.  This thread needs the rules debates, but since those can tend to go forever and disrupt any other conversation, it would be better if they didn't happen here.  Please start (and link to) another thread, or just link to another thread.

  • "You're such a munckin/cheater/etc"

  • "Only cheaters need to know this"

  • "I used that combo to kill Tiamat in a real game!  My DM cried!"

  • "This one time in band camp..."

"Nice assumptions. Completely wrong assumptions, but by jove if being incorrect stopped people from making idiotic statements, we wouldn't have modern internet subculture." Kerrus
Practical gameplay runs by neither RAW or RAI, but rather "A Compromise Between The Gist Of The Rule As I Recall Getting The Impression Of It That One Time I Read It And What Jerry Says He Remembers, Whatever, We'll Look It Up Later If Any Of Us Still Give A Damn." Erachima

Nice work. You should add Dismissive Strike. The 6 augment can be used twice an encounter. You can then teleport back and forth any monster as a free action. Add a damage zone doing damage when a creature enters it, overlapping one of the two teleport zones and you'll kill any creature without any need to hit.

Eh.  Dismissive Strike's free action seems to be triggered.  I can't find the explicit rule right now, but I believe that free actions can have triggers, and can only take place once per trigger.

And certainly, even if that rule doesn't exist, most DMs will play as if it does.  Thus this doesn't seem to rise to Broken.  Instead it's "Potentially Broken given a good fast-talk-the-DM roll", and I don't have a page for that yet.

(There's another one that's in the same realm.  Free-action on condition that can repeat.  I'll have to mention it too when I find the reference.  Grease, but that's not exploitable as far as I know.... )

"Nice assumptions. Completely wrong assumptions, but by jove if being incorrect stopped people from making idiotic statements, we wouldn't have modern internet subculture." Kerrus
Practical gameplay runs by neither RAW or RAI, but rather "A Compromise Between The Gist Of The Rule As I Recall Getting The Impression Of It That One Time I Read It And What Jerry Says He Remembers, Whatever, We'll Look It Up Later If Any Of Us Still Give A Damn." Erachima

There is a trigger, which is the creature entering the zone. Anyway each trigger is a separate instance. Enter A, teleport, enter B, teleport, Enter A.... That's what worried me about the power.

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/23.jpg)

There is a trigger, which is the creature entering the zone. Anyway each trigger is a separate instance. Enter A, teleport, enter B, teleport, Enter A.... That's what worried me about the power.

Oh.  Wizard lays down damage zone next to you. Ardent: Dismissive Strike: AP: Dismissive Strike.  Result, target dies.

Yeah, that's broken.

As a DM, you can still say that a teleport from zone A to zone A doesn't enter zone A (as per the Wall of Fire FAQ).  So the setup is harder.  Your wizard needs to action point to set up two different damage zones.  But it's still broken

"Nice assumptions. Completely wrong assumptions, but by jove if being incorrect stopped people from making idiotic statements, we wouldn't have modern internet subculture." Kerrus
Practical gameplay runs by neither RAW or RAI, but rather "A Compromise Between The Gist Of The Rule As I Recall Getting The Impression Of It That One Time I Read It And What Jerry Says He Remembers, Whatever, We'll Look It Up Later If Any Of Us Still Give A Damn." Erachima

I just wanted to point out that I'm not sure that Champion of Order deserves to be on that list.  The level 11 power is very potent indeed, but it still requires that they remain marked.  If the mark goes away, so does the effect, and re-marking afterwards won't retrigger it.  Between things like invisibility/stealth, teleporting away, immobilizing/slowing the paladin, flight, many solos have a myriad of ways to prevent the paladin from staying adjacent, and most Straladins are going to be lack at ranged attacks (Most won't use throwing weapons, and won't have the Cha to bother with implement attacks).  
A note to all who think I am being aggressive or angry- 99% of the time, I do not intend to be. I apologize if you think I am attacking you, odds are very strong that I am not. The only exceptions are when people become extremely uncivil to me, and even then I usually ignore them. I think it is very obvious when I am really mad; if I just seem generally abrasive, it is a reflection of my thought process rather than a state of emotion. I have the greatest respect for those who can debate rationally, even if we come to different conclusions. I am Blue/White
I am Blue/White
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.
I'm both orderly and rational. I value control, information, and order. I love structure and hierarchy, and will actively use whatever power or knowledge I have to maintain it. At best, I am lawful and insightful; at worst, I am bureaucratic and tyrannical.
Dismissive strike: you don't need to hit. The effect is not under the Hit clause. It happens anyway.

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/23.jpg)

I just wanted to point out that I'm not sure that Champion of Order deserves to be on that list.


I'm not sure ANYTHING in overpowered really belongs on that list.  Suggestions on how I can make that clearer?  Bent is the line where I say "Yes, this is a problem.  It can be managed, but it's still a problem".  Broken is where it can't be managed.

Dismissive strike: you don't need to hit. The effect is not under the Hit clause. It happens anyway.


Thanks.  Fixed.

"Nice assumptions. Completely wrong assumptions, but by jove if being incorrect stopped people from making idiotic statements, we wouldn't have modern internet subculture." Kerrus
Practical gameplay runs by neither RAW or RAI, but rather "A Compromise Between The Gist Of The Rule As I Recall Getting The Impression Of It That One Time I Read It And What Jerry Says He Remembers, Whatever, We'll Look It Up Later If Any Of Us Still Give A Damn." Erachima

Found it: Weaving Blades

"If X, you can do Y as a free action".  If that sets up a precondition, Weaving Blades is broken.  If it's a trigger, it's not.

"Nice assumptions. Completely wrong assumptions, but by jove if being incorrect stopped people from making idiotic statements, we wouldn't have modern internet subculture." Kerrus
Practical gameplay runs by neither RAW or RAI, but rather "A Compromise Between The Gist Of The Rule As I Recall Getting The Impression Of It That One Time I Read It And What Jerry Says He Remembers, Whatever, We'll Look It Up Later If Any Of Us Still Give A Damn." Erachima

Added the combination of Relentless Assault and Anthem of Progress.

"Nice assumptions. Completely wrong assumptions, but by jove if being incorrect stopped people from making idiotic statements, we wouldn't have modern internet subculture." Kerrus
Practical gameplay runs by neither RAW or RAI, but rather "A Compromise Between The Gist Of The Rule As I Recall Getting The Impression Of It That One Time I Read It And What Jerry Says He Remembers, Whatever, We'll Look It Up Later If Any Of Us Still Give A Damn." Erachima

Your Bent definition - that's one PC, right, not the whole party? Your bit about 'two encounters, one daily ...' seems at odds with your definition since it includes a daily and the assistance of an ally (at least for the elite)

It must be a pretty crazy game if a party of five can, say, take out five at-level solos in one turn.

Though I imagine that second turn they could maybe only take out two ;)

Just wanted to put in a quick word of thanks for the effort in maintaining the wiki. Good stuff!
Keith Richmond Living Forgotten Realms Epic Writing Director
Your Bent definition - that's one PC, right, not the whole party? Your bit about 'two encounters, one daily ...' seems at odds with your definition since it includes a daily and the assistance of an ally (at least for the elite)

It must be a pretty crazy game if a party of five can, say, take out five at-level solos in one turn.

Though I imagine that second turn they could maybe only take out two ;)


Minor action encounter attack powers?  That's what I had in mind when I wrote it anyway.

And from what Lordduskblade posts in various "nerf rangers" threads, I suspect that's a pretty accurate definition of his game.  And he seems to enjoy it, so it can obviously work for some.

BTW, there's a Feycharger varient that's about -> <- close to hitting the "Killing an at-level solo with your every-round DPR." threshhold.  So that next turn might not go as badly as you think.

"Nice assumptions. Completely wrong assumptions, but by jove if being incorrect stopped people from making idiotic statements, we wouldn't have modern internet subculture." Kerrus
Practical gameplay runs by neither RAW or RAI, but rather "A Compromise Between The Gist Of The Rule As I Recall Getting The Impression Of It That One Time I Read It And What Jerry Says He Remembers, Whatever, We'll Look It Up Later If Any Of Us Still Give A Damn." Erachima

Unsafe teleports allow a save to cancel, however. Still possibly overpowered, but auto-killing monsters seems unlikely.

EDIT: And you can't retry after the first failed attempt, since they need to enter or start their turn in the zone.


So I moved it to the fixed section

"Nice assumptions. Completely wrong assumptions, but by jove if being incorrect stopped people from making idiotic statements, we wouldn't have modern internet subculture." Kerrus
Practical gameplay runs by neither RAW or RAI, but rather "A Compromise Between The Gist Of The Rule As I Recall Getting The Impression Of It That One Time I Read It And What Jerry Says He Remembers, Whatever, We'll Look It Up Later If Any Of Us Still Give A Damn." Erachima

You might want to note that the Earth Brute ping pong combo just got waaaaaay easier to pull off with the "nerfed" Salve of Power. 
I was just thinking that myself, actually.  That and Salve of Power + Archmage = old SoP for any level.
On the CO IRC, generally as TorpedoFish.
Vain? Me? NEVER.
57223408 wrote:
You're the straightest shooter I know on these boards. You don't mince words about your opinions, and I respect that about you. The whole fiasco you described in the last State of the CO Forum was particularly enlightening (and kind of disappointing with regards to how they see us).
56868168 wrote:
Ah, Tsuyo. When your post isn't one sentence long full of asterisks, you have much wisdom to share with us .
From the IRC:
(19:52) RuinsFate: You know, I was gonna agree with something PalOn said... but I think I'm just gonna through my lot in with tsuyo's sudden train-wreck grade interjection. (01:45) Nausicaa: yes your rage is a righteous rage :D (01:45) Nausicaa: righteous rage of torpedo
My sci-fi writing.
Just wanted to note that Greg Bilsand mentioned on Twitter that he read through the HoB and sees "lots of update fodder."  Looks like we can expect fixes for some of these things in May.
I'd argue that the following are bent:
Benefits that give +Stat to a significant number of actions, particularly if through an at-will or no need to roll. These tend to start Novas, which end encounters really fast. Current offenders are:
Flame of Hope(+Int to all attacks until start of next turn against targets upon spending action point)
War Chanter(+Con to all attacks by Allies upon spending an action point)
Battle Engineer(+Con or Wis to attacks by allies standing next to them upon using specific encounter power)
Intuitive Strike(+(Wis or Cha) -1 to all attacks via hitting with an at-will that targets Will if target is then granting CA.

Automatic Rerolls to attacks without any penalty, especially ones likely to increase crit chance. If you combine an 18-20 crit chance with a reroll, bad things happen.
Sage of the Ages - 24th level power is free known reroll each round.
Lifesinger - 16th level power is reroll on a miss of a Will power.
Avenger Oath of Enmity - not usually a problem, but the ability to use Oath of Enmity on powers outside of Avenger causes problems. Twin Strike = .56% chance of at least one crit a round with Daggermaster+Avenger. When crit chance is that high, you don't actually really need to worry about hitting often, just that your to-hit chance is slightly better than 18-20. Distant Vengeance the feat has similar issues with RBAs. Student of Caiphon's change was a definite step forward, the same ought to happen to Daggermaster.

 
Updated Bent to add the elements you listed I didn't already have.  Could you read it and comment again?

I generally folded it into large multi-attack, although I guess some of the crit fishing could be pulled out.  But they seem to occupy much of the same space.

"Nice assumptions. Completely wrong assumptions, but by jove if being incorrect stopped people from making idiotic statements, we wouldn't have modern internet subculture." Kerrus
Practical gameplay runs by neither RAW or RAI, but rather "A Compromise Between The Gist Of The Rule As I Recall Getting The Impression Of It That One Time I Read It And What Jerry Says He Remembers, Whatever, We'll Look It Up Later If Any Of Us Still Give A Damn." Erachima

I just wanted to point out that I'm not sure that Champion of Order deserves to be on that list.  The level 11 power is very potent indeed, but it still requires that they remain marked.  If the mark goes away, so does the effect, and re-marking afterwards won't retrigger it.  Between things like invisibility/stealth, teleporting away, immobilizing/slowing the paladin, flight, many solos have a myriad of ways to prevent the paladin from staying adjacent

The only way to avoid Knightly Intercession's permanent sanction is to not get hit by it.

Straladins are going to be lack at ranged attacks (Most won't use throwing weapons, and won't have the Cha to bother with implement attacks).  

Throwing Shield gets around that.
Straladins are going to be lack at ranged attacks (Most won't use throwing weapons, and won't have the Cha to bother with implement attacks).  

Throwing Shield gets around that.

A +1 Javelin gets around that.  Who cares if it hits, as long as throwing it keeps the monster dazed and weaked.

"Nice assumptions. Completely wrong assumptions, but by jove if being incorrect stopped people from making idiotic statements, we wouldn't have modern internet subculture." Kerrus
Practical gameplay runs by neither RAW or RAI, but rather "A Compromise Between The Gist Of The Rule As I Recall Getting The Impression Of It That One Time I Read It And What Jerry Says He Remembers, Whatever, We'll Look It Up Later If Any Of Us Still Give A Damn." Erachima

The Wiki certainly seems comprehensive, and I want to throw out my kudo's to it.
I also wanted to toss out one potential fix for 'extra attack' options:
Make all of them a particular type that don't stack with each other.  So you could get a an extra attack if you meet one condition, but you'd only get one even if you met all of them (so, if you have follow-up blow going, and you crit, and you are a barbarian wielding two weapons with two-weapon opening, you'd only get one extra attack (in this case, TWO + Rampage are useless).  However, you might still want to take TWO as a barbarian because you could: crit, gain 1 extra attack from rampage, crit on your free attack, and get 1 extra attack from TWO, as that would be two seperate triggerings of free action extra attacks (and an, in theory, extremely rare case.)  
Basically, setting a limit on free actions, but only as it pertains to extra attacks.

Also, I have a feeling this doesn't qualify for your wiki but:
Bear Companion + Con/Int Artificer + Enhanced Resistive Formula = 50 THP (at level 12) to 100ish THP (at level 30) for 1 character/round (until you are out of Resistive Formulas), which is, for me, on the level of silliness of the pacifist healer clerics who max out Astral Seal.
Ethereal Sidestep + Evermeet Warlock = Permanent Invisibility at 11th level.
Ethereal Sidestep + Evermeet Warlock = Permanent Invisibility at 11th level.

Could you expand on that a bit?  I'm seeing invisible to everyone you teleport away from, but that's not the same as invisible. (It means you can't stealth, for example, because the other monsters can point out your square.  Not that most warlocks can stealth anyway...)

EDIT: ShakaUVM, I'm gonna move it over to Overpowered?, as I don't think it has the required "changes the game to a different game" nature that I look for in Bent.

"Nice assumptions. Completely wrong assumptions, but by jove if being incorrect stopped people from making idiotic statements, we wouldn't have modern internet subculture." Kerrus
Practical gameplay runs by neither RAW or RAI, but rather "A Compromise Between The Gist Of The Rule As I Recall Getting The Impression Of It That One Time I Read It And What Jerry Says He Remembers, Whatever, We'll Look It Up Later If Any Of Us Still Give A Damn." Erachima

Updated Bent to add the elements you listed I didn't already have.  Could you read it and comment again?

I generally folded it into large multi-attack, although I guess some of the crit fishing could be pulled out.  But they seem to occupy much of the same space.



Sure. Battle Engineer has an encounter power, Greater Magic Weapon that boosts +Con or +Wis to both attack and damage. It also stacks with Accurate Enhancement, another Battle Engineer ability. Otherwise looks good, but let me check the compendium...

I think the issue is Expertise. Initially, I think the intended result of having a Cleric add +Str via Righteous Brand was to overcome the lack of Expertise.
Pre-Errata Epic Cleric with 26 Str, no Expertise = +8 to hit.
Pre-Errata Epic Cleric with 26 Str, Expertise = +11 to hit
Post Errata Epic Cleric with 26 Str, Expertise = +6 to hit.
My Errata Epic Cleric with 26 Str, Expertise = +7 to hit(Str Mod/2 = 4, +3 for Expertise)

Pre-Errata Heroic Cleric with 18 Str, no Expertise = +4 to hit.
Pre-Errata Heroic Cleric with 18 Str, Expertise = +5 to hit
Post Errata Heroic Cleric with 18 Str, Expertise = +4 to hit.
My Errata Heroic Cleric with 18 Str, Expertise = +3 to hit(Str Mod/2 = 2, +1 for Expertise)

So +Stat should generally be turned into +Stat mod/2 or +3 depending on how essential it is for the stat to be there.
Sure. Battle Engineer has an encounter power, Greater Magic Weapon

Oh right.  Der.  Thanks, added.

I think the issue is Expertise. Initially, I think the intended result of having a Cleric add +Str via Righteous Brand was to overcome the lack of Expertise.

Completely Agree.  I don't think it quite worked right, but I agree that was the intent.  But not every leader build got a +Stat to hit buff as an at-will...

And now that the intent has changed, those powers (and the striker defensive-debuffs like Splintering Shot or the fighter flail power) need to also get changed.

"Nice assumptions. Completely wrong assumptions, but by jove if being incorrect stopped people from making idiotic statements, we wouldn't have modern internet subculture." Kerrus
Practical gameplay runs by neither RAW or RAI, but rather "A Compromise Between The Gist Of The Rule As I Recall Getting The Impression Of It That One Time I Read It And What Jerry Says He Remembers, Whatever, We'll Look It Up Later If Any Of Us Still Give A Damn." Erachima

Some other powers, most of which likely should be made into Stat/2, not Stat:
Spirit of the Vengeful Mountain - Shaman Encounter power close burst 3(spirit) that with the right Shaman adds +Con to hit targets for all ally attacks until eont. With an essentially enemy only burst 3 at range 20, there ought to be a nova target among them, if not more than one.

War of Attrition - +Cha from Inspiring Warlords to any attacks made by allies. Needs hit.
Instant Planning - +Stat to attack roll. Is Daily.
Thunderous Fury Warlord 17 - +Int for Tactical Presence for allies until EoNT. Needs hit.
Rush of Battle. Warlord Daily 22, but for Resourceful Presence, either +Cha or +Int for the basic attacks generated for it. And there are a lot of basic attacks generated. Daily.
Quickening Order. Warlord Daily 22. +Int to attack rolls. Daily. 
Great Dragon War Cry Warlord 23 - if there's a reliable way of weakening an opponent, wow. But +Cha to hit from an Inspiring Warlord on at least the target of the attack for all allies until EoNT.
Brutal Setup Warlord 27. Similar to Great Dragon. If there's a reliable way of dazing...+Int instead of +Cha and requires Tactical Presence. Requires hit.
Raise the Bar. Warlord 27. Requires hit. +Int or Wis
I fail to see why the Dismissive Strike Combo has been fixed. You can save only against teleportation into hindering terrain like lava or a pit, but a damage zone is not hindering terrain.

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/23.jpg)

but a damage zone is not hindering terrain.

DMG p. 60.  "Hindering Terrain prevents movement or damages creatures that enter it."

"Nice assumptions. Completely wrong assumptions, but by jove if being incorrect stopped people from making idiotic statements, we wouldn't have modern internet subculture." Kerrus
Practical gameplay runs by neither RAW or RAI, but rather "A Compromise Between The Gist Of The Rule As I Recall Getting The Impression Of It That One Time I Read It And What Jerry Says He Remembers, Whatever, We'll Look It Up Later If Any Of Us Still Give A Damn." Erachima

The fact that hindering terrain damages creatures doesn't imply the fact that all things that damage are hidering terrain. A zone is not a terrain at all.

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/23.jpg)

All in all, about 2 things in the entire PHB actually specifically reference hindering terrain.  So obviously not all hindering terrain is specifically mentioned.  Thus, for a DM to adjutidcate when a save is required, the DM needs to know when something is hindering terrain.  p60, DMG provides that answer.  So yes, I believe a damage zone is hindering terrain.  Most LFR tables I've seen play it that way.

Could you link to a different thread that's a more suitable place for the rules argument?  I'd like to keep this thread for maintaining the handbook.  If consensus is achieved on another thread, I'll add it back.

"Nice assumptions. Completely wrong assumptions, but by jove if being incorrect stopped people from making idiotic statements, we wouldn't have modern internet subculture." Kerrus
Practical gameplay runs by neither RAW or RAI, but rather "A Compromise Between The Gist Of The Rule As I Recall Getting The Impression Of It That One Time I Read It And What Jerry Says He Remembers, Whatever, We'll Look It Up Later If Any Of Us Still Give A Damn." Erachima

community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/758... discussed it a couple of weeks ago, and cites the forum FAQ,  which sites community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/758...
As far as I can tell from a quick skim some people have realism based concerns, but the rules consensus seems to be that a power wouldn't create hindering terrain unless it stated it did.
Grr.  Unfortunately the FAQ no longer has that answer.  It does have the "can you slide someone into a wall of fire repeatedly" question, and the answer to that does not involve saving throws.

Ok, close 'nuf.  Will move back to Broken.

"Nice assumptions. Completely wrong assumptions, but by jove if being incorrect stopped people from making idiotic statements, we wouldn't have modern internet subculture." Kerrus
Practical gameplay runs by neither RAW or RAI, but rather "A Compromise Between The Gist Of The Rule As I Recall Getting The Impression Of It That One Time I Read It And What Jerry Says He Remembers, Whatever, We'll Look It Up Later If Any Of Us Still Give A Damn." Erachima

Yeah, that one has huge table variance. Fwiw, I've never seen an LFR table do the save thing. I ran it that way for a little bit for home games, but actually stopped because the evidence was that it didn't work that way.

Hmm, I wonder if that's in the errata forums somewhere...
Keith Richmond Living Forgotten Realms Epic Writing Director
Grr.  Unfortunately the FAQ no longer has that answer.  It does have the "can you slide someone into a wall of fire repeatedly" question, and the answer to that does not involve saving throws.

Ok, close 'nuf.  Will move back to Broken.


Sorry, the FAQ I was mentioning is the Rules Q&A forum FAQ: community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/758...

It's just something that gets updated after consensus gets reached on something on the rules forum and isn't official.  You were asking for evidence of consensus, though, and all I've seen indicates that's the consensus.

Here's the entry in question:
Do you get a save to fall prone when entering a damaging zone? The concensus is no - the 'hindering terrain' rules were apparently intended for encounter terrain rather than damaging powers (Custserv has been answering this fairly consistently, and examples of moving into zones and auras never mention going prone as an option. Also, allowing the save may nerf some controller powers).
Something that I'd put the category of bent is the multiple uses of the same magic item in a same day/encounter. If you can use the same daily magic item more than once, you can build around it. If you can't, you won't.

As an example, Salve of Power pre-errata - you can use it 5 times in a day, various 5th level powers cause issues within the game. If you can only use it once, the person would have been able to have two 5th level dailies, maybe three with an artificer, but it would be very hard to make it all happen in every encounter every day.

The suggested fix is being only able to use one of the particular item in its time frame. So if you have a magic item that can be used once per encounter, you can only use one of those magic items in an encounter, but you could use different copies of that magic item in the same day, just not in the same encounter. If the item can be used once a day, then you can only use one of those items in a day. 
I think that's worth mentioning, I'm just not quite sure yet if it's Bent or Overpowered.  My knee jerk is "Overpowered?", because I don't quite see how that changes the nature of the game.

Large-multiattack changes the game from one of attrittion to one of Control... if the PC gets a free round, a monster dies.  From "Padded Sumo" to "Rocket Launcher Tag".  Using the Imprison Ritual in combat has the same effect: if the monster fails one roll, it dies.

I'm not sure I see how having three sets of ''Dice of Auspicious Fortune'' has the same effect, without there already being some other Bent element.

"Nice assumptions. Completely wrong assumptions, but by jove if being incorrect stopped people from making idiotic statements, we wouldn't have modern internet subculture." Kerrus
Practical gameplay runs by neither RAW or RAI, but rather "A Compromise Between The Gist Of The Rule As I Recall Getting The Impression Of It That One Time I Read It And What Jerry Says He Remembers, Whatever, We'll Look It Up Later If Any Of Us Still Give A Damn." Erachima

Ethereal Sidestep + Evermeet Warlock = Permanent Invisibility at 11th level.

Could you expand on that a bit?  I'm seeing invisible to everyone you teleport away from, but that's not the same as invisible. (It means you can't stealth, for example, because the other monsters can point out your square.  Not that most warlocks can stealth anyway...)

EDIT: ShakaUVM, I'm gonna move it over to Overpowered?, as I don't think it has the required "changes the game to a different game" nature that I look for in Bent.


It's as least as powerful as the other things in bent. Being able to stay invisible to your mark or avenger target all day long is enough to break the game.

Ethereal Sidestep + Evermeet Warlock = Permanent Invisibility at 11th level.

It's as least as powerful as the other things in bent. Being able to stay invisible to your mark or avenger target all day long is enough to break the game.

Which other things?  I may want to move them out.

My bias is strongly toward not putting things into either the Broken or Bent categories, because I don't believe powerful characters are badwrongfun, and putting more elements into the upper reaches indicates that it is.

So, staying invisible to your avenger target all day strikes me as very straight forward "Overpowered?".  It's +5 to AC, by choosing a paragon path.  That's a nice feature, no doubt ... but I don't see how it changes the nature of the game.  It gives you a serious advantage in the game, but everyone's still playing the same (accretive advantage, probability will work out in the end) game.

Staying invisible to your mark target might cross the line to Bent, but because of my bias I'd rather keep it out of there.

"Nice assumptions. Completely wrong assumptions, but by jove if being incorrect stopped people from making idiotic statements, we wouldn't have modern internet subculture." Kerrus
Practical gameplay runs by neither RAW or RAI, but rather "A Compromise Between The Gist Of The Rule As I Recall Getting The Impression Of It That One Time I Read It And What Jerry Says He Remembers, Whatever, We'll Look It Up Later If Any Of Us Still Give A Damn." Erachima

Ethereal Sidestep + Evermeet Warlock = Permanent Invisibility at 11th level.

It's as least as powerful as the other things in bent. Being able to stay invisible to your mark or avenger target all day long is enough to break the game.

Which other things?  I may want to move them out.

My bias is strongly toward not putting things into either the Broken or Bent categories, because I don't believe powerful characters are badwrongfun, and putting more elements into the upper reaches indicates that it is.

So, staying invisible to your avenger target all day strikes me as very straight forward "Overpowered?".  It's +5 to AC, by choosing a paragon path.  That's a nice feature, no doubt ... but I don't see how it changes the nature of the game.  It gives you a serious advantage in the game, but everyone's still playing the same (accretive advantage, probability will work out in the end) game.

Staying invisible to your mark target might cross the line to Bent, but because of my bias I'd rather keep it out of there.


Right now you have large attack bonuses, which at most turn into autohits (2+). Being permanently invisible to your target means they will pretty much automiss you (Natural 20s only). It's symmetrical. You can win a combat either way.
Right now you have large attack bonuses, which at most turn into autohits (2+). Being permanently invisible to your target means they will pretty much automiss you (Natural 20s only). It's symmetrical. You can win a combat either way.

No, I have "Large Multiattack" listed as a bent element.  One bit that's required to make it bent is large attack bonuses, so I list a number of them... but I only consider them bent inside the framework of a Ranger/Pitfighter style Nova turn.

Perhaps I should list "large attack bonuses" separately in "Overpowered", (with a reference back to Bent, to keep down on data duplication)?  Suggestions on how I can make that clearer?

To try and make clearer where I'm putting the dividing line:

Broken: The game doesn't function from a mechanical perspective.  Brutal-4 Vorpal Daggers, for example.  Broken things need to be fixed.  I'm aiming for "99.99% of the cheesiest munchkinest players on all Internet forums agree that fixing this is a good thing"  Item-duplication bugs in MUDs, for example...

Bent: Changes the game from one type of game into another.  As an example, watching two people play street fighter who don't know combos is a different game than two people playing who do.  No button mashing in the second case...  It's all a timing game, in some cases timing tight to the specific frame in the animation.  The "Diplomancer" from 3.5, for example.  Save-or-dies in 4e (How Space Drop and Combat Imprison made it in).  The DM ought to know about bent things in advance, so he can decide which D&D game he's playing: the one that's Rocket Launcher tag, or the other one.  Both are valid choices.

Overpowered: Really Really Good.  +5 to AC on a high-ac character counts (but I'm not quite sure how you get to automiss with just +5.  But there are some other sources of +5 AC that it can stack with, so yeah, can't hit me is perfectly possible).  DMs might want to know about some of these in advance, and may want to create house rules if it's being a problem.

"Nice assumptions. Completely wrong assumptions, but by jove if being incorrect stopped people from making idiotic statements, we wouldn't have modern internet subculture." Kerrus
Practical gameplay runs by neither RAW or RAI, but rather "A Compromise Between The Gist Of The Rule As I Recall Getting The Impression Of It That One Time I Read It And What Jerry Says He Remembers, Whatever, We'll Look It Up Later If Any Of Us Still Give A Damn." Erachima

I think that's worth mentioning, I'm just not quite sure yet if it's Bent or Overpowered.  My knee jerk is "Overpowered?", because I don't quite see how that changes the nature of the game.

I'm not sure I see how having three sets of ''Dice of Auspicious Fortune'' has the same effect, without there already being some other Bent element.



Many bent daily items(including possible future items) are in part bent because they can in theory change every encounter and/or every nova. By restricting daily items to once per day, they can only change one encounter or one nova.

It doesn't unbreak/bend/nerf the item, but it prevents a situation where because an encounter can be steamrolled, the entire adventure is therefore also crushed. Or because one player can dominate the table in one encounter, they can therefore use the same trick to always dominate the table throughout the adventure.

I think that using Polearm Momentum with implement-based powers through glaives (for swordmages/arcane characters with Arcane Implement Proficiency) or through totems (with an Alfair Spear or other spear/totem) should go into the Bent category. It's really close to the cusp of being merely overpowered, but when used with burst powers that slide 2 or more (especially ones which are at-will), it can cause much of the battlefield to be knocked prone, forcing those enemies to crawl at half-speed before their attacks at a -2 penalty, or to have to spend a move action to stand and then charge any foes.


I think that Polearm Momentum works with attacks against single targets, and close bursts that are a) encounter and b) relatively small. Given that it was originally a fighter feat, that would seem to be its intention. It's telling that few single class fighters are able to use the feat as effectively as controllers (either primary or secondary role).


As a solution, I'd limit Polearm Momentum to weapon attacks. That fixes the issue of implement attacks which hit more targets than anticipated from the fighter perspective, while preserving the feat for its purpose to provide more control to polearm wielders.