PDA

View Full Version : What are the major problems in 3.5?



Eloi
2010-06-10, 03:22 AM
What are the major problems in 3.5 edition rule set as a whole, and to be even more specific with that, what major problems of 3.5 aren't fixed by Pathfinder?

Keld Denar
2010-06-10, 03:30 AM
Test of Spite Banlist (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=150821)

2nd post. Its long.

Endarire
2010-06-10, 03:33 AM
WotC has sporatically supported it.

Thrice Dead Cat
2010-06-10, 03:36 AM
The link already partially covered it, but casters > noncasters. Being able to rewrite both reality and your abilities per day is strong while sucking on lesser and lesser feat choices as you continue is not.

Eldan
2010-06-10, 03:40 AM
In a more general fashion, and going mostly by core, as that is what Pathfinder is concerned with:

Quadratic Wizards, Linear Fighters

While on low levels, non-caster archetypes and caster archetypes, to use a broader term, are roughly average. However, as one approaches middle levels, one of the main problems in the system becomes apparent: the wizard gains new spells of greater and greater power, every single one of which is not only a new combat option, but also a stronger combat option than before. The fighter, meanwhile, gains comparably little benefit from leveling: a point of base attack, a few hit points, better saves, feats from time to time. To make the strengths equivalent, the following would have to be true: one fighter feat would have to be as strong as all the new spells the wizard gains from level 19 to 20, which clearly is not true.

Spells break the game, and hard:

Even on lower levels, casters can emulate all the other party roles: a level 3 rogue can not possibly have as much utility as a caster, but the level 3 wizard has invisibility, detect secret doors, silence and knock. He also has Bull's Strength, Alter Self and Enlarge person, making him potentially the better fighter than the fighter, if he has time to prepare and is willing to go all-out.
On higher levels, things become much, much worse: unchecked, casters can create infinite resources quickly. They can become practically immune to death by Astral Projection, they can summon armies of creatures stronger than the rest of the party.

Non-casters lack options

This is, basically, the one that annoys me the most. I can cope with wizards being more powerful than fighters. What I can't cope with is fighters being so damn boring for half the game. They get no skills, they get no class abilities. They can't do anything special outside combat, while the caster has charms, illusions and divinations for fun off-time shenanigans. Even for combat, which should be their forté, they can learn two, three tricks over their career, mostly boiling down to "I hit him", "I hit him so he falls over" and "I run up to him and hit him extra hard."


For specific examples of overpowered spells, see test of spite.

mikej
2010-06-10, 03:42 AM
What are the major problems in 3.5 edition rule set as a whole, and to be even more specific with that, what major problems of 3.5 aren't fixed by Pathfinder?

Why do you ask? As this topic has been done to death before.

As for problems not fixed by Pathfinder. Just look what options are available for the Pathfinder Fighter compared to the Wizard at ( Just top of my head ) both 17th level. Also don't get me started on my personal "hatred" of the Pathfinder revision of Druids.

GoodbyeSoberDay
2010-06-10, 03:51 AM
"Problems" is pretty general. I'd say Keld's link to the ToS banlist covers most of the truly broken and poorly worded combinations of content, but the system still has its general flaws beyond that. Of course, what I may view as a flaw, someone else may view as a great part of the system; once you go beyond the obvious stuff (the ToS banlist basically), it gets fuzzy.

1. The skill system, while good in concept, can be broken or abused in a variety of ways. On top of that, it's not very realistic due to the supporting d20 mechanic. Class skills as niche protection limits character customization (generally a plus of 3.5), and many classes just have woefully few skill points.

2. The game suffers large power imbalances, generally between casters and non-casters, especially at higher levels. Casters get options, non-casters don't, yadda yadda. I'm sure many, many people will beat this dead horse, so I'll move on.

3. Poorly playtested content takes the form of trap options or rules lawyer nightmares. Examples include the Truenamer, Monk, and Dodge for traps, and... well, look at the ToS banlist for the poorly worded garbage. Again, 3.5 has a wealth of options, but you better know what you're doing before taking one.

4. 4e gets all of WotC's support now, via errata and new content. It is by no means a dead system, but it is definitely a stagnant system.

I'm not a Pathfinder expert, but as far as I know (1) was improved, (2) made superficial changes, (3) isn't as noticeable because there just isn't as much content, and (4) is sort of moot because it's third party anyway, and presumably Paizo will support their own work.

PId6
2010-06-10, 03:53 AM
Candle of Invocation. What in the world possessed them to keep that for Pathfinder is beyond me.

Eloi
2010-06-10, 03:55 AM
Why do you ask? As this topic has been done to death before.
I haven't been here long enough to witness a topic like this.

So the complaint I'm hearing is 'high-level magic breaks the game' and 'the mages are too much of a swiss-army knife' and 'fighters don't have enough abilities'.
So, reduce them to spells that wouldn't infringe upon other classes usefulness, of those they have to be low-level, than take that list of low level spells, say Level 4-2 to Level 0 spells, and then give fewer spells per level. Would that balance them at all?
What are some of your ideas for fixes to the dynamic wizard and the linear warrior?

Eloi
2010-06-10, 03:57 AM
1. The skill system, while good in concept, can be broken or abused in a variety of ways. On top of that, it's not very realistic due to the supporting d20 mechanic. Class skills as niche protection limits character customization (generally a plus of 3.5), and many classes just have woefully few skill points.



Would giving skill points by race instead of class solve this problem?

PId6
2010-06-10, 04:00 AM
What are some of your ideas for fixes to the dynamic wizard and the linear warrior?
Just use ~Tier 2-3 classes like Beguiler, Sorcerer, Psion, Warblade, Factotum, etc. Ban the wizard. Ban the fighter (except for dips). Now everyone has cool gizmos, and nobody's too much more powerful than anyone else.


So, reduce them to spells that wouldn't infringe upon other classes usefulness, of those they have to be low-level, than take that list of low level spells, say Level 4-2 to Level 0 spells, and then give fewer spells per level.
You may as well just kill the class then. NPC adept is better than that.

Eloi
2010-06-10, 04:03 AM
Just use ~Tier 2-3 classes like Beguiler, Sorcerer, Psion, Warblade, Factotum, etc. Ban the wizard. Ban the fighter (except for dips). Now everyone has cool gizmos, and nobody's too much more powerful than anyone else.
That sounds workable, pretty balanced. So just ban Tier >2 classes and Tier 3< classes and you'll be one step closer to fixing the game system. Hooray.

Eldan
2010-06-10, 04:25 AM
I would use tier 3 and 4, actually, with tier 2 when appropriate (i.e. know your players).

Your suggested fix for the wizard has the problem that it doesn't solve the problem: if he really wants to, the wizard can break the game with three spells per day of different levels, one of them probably level 8 or 9, but not necessarily. He just has to become more resource efficient. The problem for him then becomes not that he is less powerful, just that he casts his three super-spells for the day, and then stands by for the rest of the time, while his summoned resources or automatic kill-traps do the rest.

It has been discussed several times on the boards and the consensus usually was: not the wizard class is broken, or less so thank people think. Instead, spells are broken. Meteor Swarm will rarely be a problem, but it's almost impossible to use the calling function of gate in any balanced way. To make the wizard a balanced class, half the spells would have to be rewritten.

Even then, casters, especially the sorcerer and wizard, have the possibility of filling a variety of roles, and even switching between them from day to day. A wizard can sit down with his spell book every morning and think to himself "do I want to blast today, or be an illusionist?" and then prepare spells accordingly. This is why people suggest the much narrower specialized caster classes: Beguiler, Warlock, Warmage, Dread Necromancer all have a much narrower party role and fluff niche.

Eloi
2010-06-10, 04:28 AM
I would use tier 3 and 4, actually, with tier 2 when appropriate (i.e. know your players).

Your suggested fix for the wizard has the problem that it doesn't solve the problem: if he really wants to, the wizard can break the game with three spells per day of different levels, one of them probably level 8 or 9, but not necessarily. He just has to become more resource efficient. The problem for him then becomes not that he is less powerful, just that he casts his three super-spells for the day, and then stands by for the rest of the time, while his summoned resources or automatic kill-traps do the rest.

It has been discussed several times on the boards and the consensus usually was: not the wizard class is broken, or less so thank people think. Instead, spells are broken. Meteor Swarm will rarely be a problem, but it's almost impossible to use the calling function of gate in any balanced way. To make the wizard a balanced class, half the spells would have to be rewritten.

Even then, casters, especially the sorcerer and wizard, have the possibility of filling a variety of roles, and even switching between them from day to day. A wizard can sit down with his spell book every morning and think to himself "do I want to blast today, or be an illusionist?" and then prepare spells accordingly. This is why people suggest the much narrower specialized caster classes: Beguiler, Warlock, Warmage, Dread Necromancer all have a much narrower party role and fluff niche.
3&4 seem to have the most diversity yet balance, I agree.

Or maybe splitting the schools of magic into different classes, that way all schools of magic can be accounted for?

PId6
2010-06-10, 04:29 AM
That sounds workable, pretty balanced. So just ban Tier >2 classes and Tier 3< classes and you'll be one step closer to fixing the game system. Hooray.
Allowing lower tier classes to exist isn't a problem, as long as newbies know to avoid them. Classes like rogue and barbarian can certainly be optimized to compete with higher tiers; you just need to be really good at it. They also happen to make good dips for Tier 3s (barbarian for pounce, fighter for feats, etc). There are some combos that rely on lower tier classes as well whose overall results are higher tier (Daring Outlaw for rogue/swashbuckler, Swift Hunter for ranger/scout, Tashalatora for Monk/Ardent). Even Tier 1 classes may be allowable as dips if you want (Cleric dip happens to be great for Swift Hunter builds, and a lot of other things).

Eloi
2010-06-10, 04:31 AM
Allowing lower tier classes to exist isn't a problem, as long as newbies know to avoid them. Classes like rogue and barbarian can certainly be optimized to compete with higher tiers; you just need to be really good at it. They also happen to make good dips for Tier 3s (barbarian for pounce, fighter for feats, etc). There are some combos that rely on lower tier classes as well whose overall results are higher tier (Daring Outlaw for rogue/swashbuckler, Swift Hunter for ranger/scout, Tashalatora for Monk/Ardent). Even Tier 1 classes may be allowable as dips if you want (Cleric dip happens to be great for Swift Hunter builds, and a lot of other things).

Ah, the lower Tier classes could be the non-base classes, like you have the Tier 3&4 classes mentioned in the core rulebooks, and >3 tier classes mentioned in source books for builds.

Eldan
2010-06-10, 04:38 AM
3&4 seem to have the most diversity yet balance, I agree.

Or maybe splitting the schools of magic into different classes, that way all schools of magic can be accounted for?

It's been discussed, yes, and seems a good idea. Generally, you can go by:

Beguiler: Enchanter, with a dash of illusionist, or more illusionist of focused on it.
Dread Necromancer: Necromancy
Warmage: Blaster. Note: not very good at his job, needs some help, perhaps.

If I remember correctly, I've also seen Summoner and Diviner classes homebrewed on these boards. Transmuters and Conjurors are probably a little more difficult, as these are very broad schools. (Did I miss any?)

I wouldn't just split the wizard in school classes: the wizard actually has barely any class features other than spells. Instead, I would go the way described above: look for a class with some interesting features other than spells, one for each role a mage can fill.

Eloi
2010-06-10, 04:43 AM
It's been discussed, yes, and seems a good idea. Generally, you can go by:

Beguiler: Enchanter, with a dash of illusionist, or more illusionist of focused on it.
Dread Necromancer: Necromancy
Warmage: Blaster. Note: not very good at his job, needs some help, perhaps.

If I remember correctly, I've also seen Summoner and Diviner classes homebrewed on these boards. Transmuters and Conjurors are probably a little more difficult, as these are very broad schools. (Did I miss any?)

I wouldn't just split the wizard in school classes: the wizard actually has barely any class features other than spells. Instead, I would go the way described above: look for a class with some interesting features other than spells, one for each role a mage can fill.

There is just something wrong with Wizards, I think. The Tier 3&4 characters seem to have some magic, but not game-breakingly so. Which would make sense from a story-standpoint, as how can it be in medieval stasis if you have such a great ability to improve everything?

PId6
2010-06-10, 04:47 AM
Ah, the lower Tier classes could be the non-base classes, like you have the Tier 3&4 classes mentioned in the core rulebooks, and >3 tier classes mentioned in source books for builds.
I'd suggest against making Tier 4s part of the baseline. They can be good if well-optimized, but most Tier 4s can be pretty bad if you don't know what you're doing. Rogue and Ranger can be powerful in the right hands, but that involves picking from 10 different sourcebooks to pull off.

Tier 3s tend to be much more beginner-friendly in comparison. Beguiler/Dread Necromancer have set spell lists so you'll never completely suck, while ToB classes are famously hard to screw up (though it's still possible). Interestingly, Tier 2s are easier to screw up than Tier 3s. Spell/power lists make or break the Sorcerers and (to a lesser extent) Psions.

So I guess "core" should be composed of ToB, school-based casters like Beguiler and Dread Necromancer, Duskblade, and Factotum. All of these are T3 classes that are beginner-friendly and powerful in their own right.

Eloi
2010-06-10, 04:49 AM
I'd suggest against making Tier 4s part of the baseline. They can be good if well-optimized, but most Tier 4s can be pretty bad if you don't know what you're doing. Rogue and Ranger can be powerful in the right hands, but that involves picking from 10 different sourcebooks to pull off.

Tier 3s tend to be much more beginner-friendly in comparison. Beguiler/Dread Necromancer have set spell lists so you'll never completely suck, while ToB classes are famously hard to screw up (though it's still possible). Interestingly, Tier 2s are easier to screw up than Tier 3s. Spell/power lists make or break the Sorcerers and (to a lesser extent) Psions.

So I guess "core" should be composed of ToB, school-based casters like Beguiler and Dread Necromancer, Duskblade, and Factotum. All of these are T3 classes that are beginner-friendly and powerful in their own right.

So we're eliminating everything but T3, with T4-5 sidelined, T2 heavily surpressed, and T1 outright banned.
Hm..
Seems to work for me, I usually play a Bard (T3) anyway.

Innis Cabal
2010-06-10, 04:51 AM
The players mostly.

TK-Squared
2010-06-10, 04:56 AM
The players mostly.

Pretty much this.

Eldan
2010-06-10, 05:02 AM
Well, yes.

If your players actively try to break the game, there's really not much you can do, even with excessive banning.

I was more talking from the standpoint of making a baseline on which a given group can then build their own guidelines, rules and agreements for their own game.

It's entirely possible to make a weak wizard, or a strong fighter. My first character ever was a wizard, starting out with sleep, mount, burning hands and, I think, floating disk. He also had 16 intelligence, but 20 dexterity because he was an elf and I wanted him to be a good archer, "because elves do that". Not a strong character by any means. Our druid asked if he could have cat form instead of bear form (i.e. tiny wildshape instead of large) because "bears make bad scouts".

Still: if the player knows what he is doing and is not gimping himself on purpose, he will have a hard time making a druid not overpowering the class.


As an aside, on the subject of medieval stasis: that's entirely subject to individual preferences. I don't actually like medieval stasis all that much, to me as a DM it's much more interesting to take the rules of a given game and see where they take me, setting-wise.

PId6
2010-06-10, 05:04 AM
If your players actively try to break the game, there's really not much you can do, even with excessive banning.
Well, you can always ban the players. :smallcool:

Eldan
2010-06-10, 05:06 AM
True. But if you do that too much, you end up without a group.

I mean, we were three people in our group back in school, DM included. If we banned anyone, we wouldn't have had a game. Even though one player played a monk called "The nameless one" and never talked much (neither the character nor ethe player spoke much, actually) and the other wanted to play something different every weekend (I made a bard this week! They are much cooler than my sorcerer last week, or the druid the week before! He's also a gnome who grew up with elves and hates dwarves!), all characters excessively silly.

PersonMan
2010-06-10, 05:07 AM
Well, you can always ban the players. :smallcool:

DM: Alright, then. Here are my houserules. Read them and ask any questions you might have.
P1: Well...looks pretty good.
P2: You made the Monk better, I see...
P3: But what's with this banlist?
DM: Oh, yeah, I forgot. Players are banned in my games. Leave, all of you.
P1: But-!
DM: No buts. If you can't respect my houserules from Day 1 you're out.

Eldan
2010-06-10, 05:09 AM
Player: can I be Co-DM, then?

Eloi
2010-06-10, 05:12 AM
Well yes you could ban abusive players, but I was looking to make an outline for a major overhall to 3.5 whilst still being 3.5, and Pathfinder doesn't cut it. I think the banning of everything but Tier 3 would make the game more balanced, and I think not allowing players to acquire templates or be monster-races may solve some of the problems with that *coughcheesecough*. Basically, you pick a Core Race and then choose from Beguiler, Dread Necromancer, Crusader, Bard, Swordsage, Binder (without access to the summon monster vestige), Wildshape Varient Ranger, Duskblade, Factotum, Warblade, Psionic Warrior. Is that a fun change tho'? It'd make things more balanced for sure, but I'm unsure on the fun factor.

PId6
2010-06-10, 05:17 AM
Well yes you could ban abusive players, but I was looking to make an outline for a major overhall to 3.5 whilst still being 3.5, and Pathfinder doesn't cut it. I think the banning of everything but Tier 3 would make the game more balanced, and I think not allowing players to acquire templates or be monster-races may solve some of the problems with that *coughcheesecough*. Basically, you pick a Core Race and then choose from Beguiler, Dread Necromancer, Crusader, Bard, Swordsage, Binder (without access to the summon monster vestige), Wildshape Varient Ranger, Duskblade, Factotum, Warblade, Psionic Warrior. Is that a fun change tho'? It'd make things more balanced for sure, but I'm unsure on the fun factor.
I'd say no. Part of the appeal of 3.5 is that there's so many options; cutting out most of the options makes me ask "Why not just go 4E then?" That's why I mostly operate under a "Don't break it and you can play it" policy.

And monster races usually mean obscenely nerfing yourself, not cheese (besides a few exceptions), due to the overtly high LA/RHD on most of them. And Core races are pretty bad as well; Dwarf and Human vastly outshine the other PHB races. Pathfinder actually did pretty well here IMO, making underused races much better (though unfortunately making Human even better in the process).

Eloi
2010-06-10, 05:23 AM
I'd say no. Part of the appeal of 3.5 is that there's so many options; cutting out most of the options makes me ask "Why not just go 4E then?" That's why I mostly operate under a "Don't break it and you can play it" policy.

And monster races usually mean obscenely nerfing yourself, not cheese (besides a few exceptions), due to the overtly high LA/RHD on most of them. And Core races are pretty bad as well; Dwarf and Human vastly outshine the other PHB races. Pathfinder actually did pretty well here IMO, making underused races much better (though unfortunately making Human even better in the process).

So how about broad races, narrow classes?

Hendel
2010-06-10, 05:27 AM
Personally, I do not agree much with the tier system. I think fighter types excel at lower levels while casters are still trying to find their stride. Then at higher levels, casters are boss and fighters have to find ways to keep up.

If a player is crafty enough, he can get the right mixture to make a fighter type extremely playable at high levels. In a game that I DM the 30th level sorcerer rocks, but the 28th level fighter/paladin is right there with him every step of the way. I know people will talk about Disjunction and Wish but those do not solve all of the caster's problems.

I think that one on one situations are not a really reliable way to look at a character's power level. How the group operates and the dynamics there are what is important to how effective each character is. Just my humble opinion.

PId6
2010-06-10, 05:28 AM
So how about broad races, narrow classes?
Not sure what you mean by "broad" races.


Personally, I do not agree much with the tier system. I think fighter types excel at lower levels while casters are still trying to find their stride. Then at higher levels, casters are boss and fighters have to find ways to keep up.

If a player is crafty enough, he can get the right mixture to make a fighter type extremely playable at high levels. In a game that I DM the 30th level sorcerer rocks, but the 28th level fighter/paladin is right there with him every step of the way. I know people will talk about Disjunction and Wish but those do not solve all of the caster's problems.
It's highly dependent on optimization as well. Tiers system assumes a decently-high level of optimization. If the sorcerer, say, took Shapechange, he can easily outfight the fighter and then some.

Eloi
2010-06-10, 05:29 AM
Not sure what you mean by "broad" races.

Like, a lot of them to choose from, a lot of nice templates to pick, y'know, broad amount of choices?

PId6
2010-06-10, 05:33 AM
Like, a lot of them to choose from, a lot of nice templates to pick, y'know, broad amount of choices?
I'd refrain from template overload, but yeah, lots of racial choices is good. Templates can be too good, however. Look at Dragonborn; it's not overpowered, but it's still used all over the place because of how adaptable it is. I'd much rather have lots of subraces like elves currently do; that gives options for customization without the abusability of templates.

Totally Guy
2010-06-10, 05:34 AM
Not really a mayor problem but...

The game centres around testing your character build rather than testing your character concept.

Eloi
2010-06-10, 05:37 AM
Not really a mayor problem but...

The game centres around testing your character build rather than testing your character concept.

Well no, actually its free to pick whatever appeals to you more fluff-wise because all of the classes are balanced.

Eloi
2010-06-10, 05:38 AM
I'd refrain from template overload, but yeah, lots of racial choices is good. Templates can be too good, however. Look at Dragonborn; it's not overpowered, but it's still used all over the place because of how adaptable it is. I'd much rather have lots of subraces like elves currently do; that gives options for customization without the abusability of templates.

Hm, so a whole bunch of Subraces on Core Races. Sounds like a good compromise between "templates" and "core races only", good thinking.

Zeta Kai
2010-06-10, 06:39 AM
Personally, I do not agree much with the tier system. I think fighter types excel at lower levels while casters are still trying to find their stride. Then at higher levels, casters are boss and fighters have to find ways to keep up.

If a player is crafty enough, he can get the right mixture to make a fighter type extremely playable at high levels. In a game that I DM the 30th level sorcerer rocks, but the 28th level fighter/paladin is right there with him every step of the way. I know people will talk about Disjunction and Wish but those do not solve all of the caster's problems.

I think that one on one situations are not a really reliable way to look at a character's power level. How the group operates and the dynamics there are what is important to how effective each character is. Just my humble opinion.

Well, the Tier system is based on versatility, not power per se. This is a common misunderstanding of the system, what it's for, & how it should be used. It is a rough metric of the overall versatility of the class, as explained in each Tier description. A T1 class is more versatile than a T2 class, a T2 has more tricks at their disposal than a T3, a T3 can do more things than a T4, et cetera. It's all about what you can do well with a particular class. A fighter can do one or two things reasonably well, while a druid can do several things excellently almost without trying.

Gnaeus
2010-06-10, 07:59 AM
If a player is crafty enough, he can get the right mixture to make a fighter type extremely playable at high levels. In a game that I DM the 30th level sorcerer rocks, but the 28th level fighter/paladin is right there with him every step of the way. I know people will talk about Disjunction and Wish but those do not solve all of the caster's problems.

A poorly played sorcerer is tier 3 (edit. maybe even tier 4, if he picks all his spells around a niche, like a blaster or necromancer who doesn't take spells outside his field. This is almost a deliberate self nerf, but some people do play sorcs this way).
A well built and played paladin/fighter is tier 4.

A tier 3 and 4 can easily operate in the same group without problematic power imbalance.

If the sorcerer were optimized and playing his class in a way that resembled a tier 1, there is no encounter in which the fighter could meaningfully contribute which the sorcerer could not win alone, unless the entire thing takes place in an AMF or similar caster nerf.



3. Poorly playtested content takes the form of trap options or rules lawyer nightmares. Examples include the Truenamer, Monk, and Dodge for traps, and... well, look at the ToS banlist for the poorly worded garbage. Again, 3.5 has a wealth of options, but you better know what you're doing before taking one.

This is the real problem IMO. If everyone knew the power imbalances in the system, everyone could just agree to play on the same level, or the stronger players/classes could agree to tone it down. Wizards presents the system as if Monk 20 and Druid 20 are equivalent options (or Dodge, toughness & weapon focus vs. DMM persist). Lots of people are cool with power imbalance in their games. Playing a weak character on purpose is fine. Playing a weak character because you made a mistake sucks.

Person_Man
2010-06-10, 08:33 AM
In my view, the biggest (and really only) problem besides the abundance of poor editing is the learning curve. It takes hours upon hours to learn and use even the most basic of game mechanics. It takes years to learn how to be an effective DM and how to make a and play a character that is not so weak that they have nothing to do, but not so strong that they blow up the game or overshadow everyone else in your group. Once you've done that, it's a great system. But until you've learned and matured, it's a hit or miss game.

InkEyes
2010-06-10, 09:03 AM
The "spellcasters too good" thing has already been mentioned, but the tier 1 classes are too good for several reasons: they have no limitations on how many spells they have access to, or they have weak spellbook limitations that are overcome at higher levels. (Because the money they need to write spells down becomes an inconsequential amount. Time is a bit more difficult, but since it's not continuous, they can do it while adventuring.) Of course, this would all be for naught if the classes themselves didn't have excellent spells to choose from.

jiriku
2010-06-10, 09:06 AM
There is just something wrong with Wizards, I think.

Yes. The problem is that the wizard attempts to fill the role of the arcane caster archetype. All of them. At once. Thus, a single fully equipped wizard can shapeshift like Merlin, traffic with spirits like Alannon, ward off balrogs like Gandalf, throw fire like Tim the Enchanter, control water like the Sorcerer's Apprentice in Fantasia, etc, etc, etc, etc....

Eldariel
2010-06-10, 09:24 AM
Let's see, problems beyond "too powerful things":

There are too many and too efficient spells, removing the need for anything else.
Traps: Lots of poor PRCs, feats, classes and so on with no warning sign of "It's a trap!" on them.
Poor balance between various combat styles: Two-Handed Fighting, Two-Weapon Fighting, Sword & Board, One-Handing and Archery are all on various different lines with an array of problems (aside from Two-Handed Fighting) that you need excessive work to overcome.
Excessive feat tax and too few feats over the levels. A level 20 character without class-based bonus feats generally needs to focus to get anything done, and that's without going into inane feat taxes like Two-Weapon Fighting requiring 3 feats to do reasonably or Dodge & Mobility being prerequisites to various useful feats or Weapon Supremacy requiring 5 other feats to pick or so on.
Skill system not functioning well with such an incredibly small pool of skillpoints. Even the smartest human Rogue can't have skill in all the basic street skills, let alone someone with sub-18 Int.
Excessive item reliance especially for non-casters, but the system expects even casters to be loaded to the brim with magical trash. Oh, and you need casters to craft the magic items non-casters rely on.
A combat system that really undermines the danger of someone with a pointy stick near you, and the function of a meatshield; it's impossible to interpose yourself in front of someone in any quarters larger than you, and 5' steps ensure that your normal threatened area doesn't really help to stop people from casting or shooting or whatever.
The system for playing monstrous races is trash. Level Adjustment and Racial Hit Dice are both horrible game-mechanical solutions to some races being more powerful than others.

Runestar
2010-06-10, 09:47 AM
Abusive stacking. There is little point to bonuses of the same name not stacking when you can readily get so many different bonuses of differing names.

*.*.*.*
2010-06-10, 10:09 AM
We need a "major problems with 4E" thread. All this 3E hate is unfair:smallfrown:

the humanity
2010-06-10, 10:33 AM
if they had made the spellcasters (all of them!) like they had the warlock, there would be much less problems.

a well optimized warlock and a well optimized fighter rarely overpower each other.

Faleldir
2010-06-10, 10:42 AM
We need a "major problems with 4E" thread. All this 3E hate is unfair:smallfrown:

That's because they aren't major.

Kaiyanwang
2010-06-10, 10:46 AM
Well, even if I recognize the problems (more or less, what Eldariel said) I can bring in my games workarounds and I don't feel them dire.

In fact, I consider 3.5 far better than 4th edition, even with these problems.

Moreover, 4th edition didn't adressed any of these problems, but threw the child with the bathwater. No reason to play it, at least for me.

Emmerask
2010-06-10, 10:46 AM
Hm duno raw I would agree but in actual gameplay I very very rarely have any problem with casters being extremely more powerful then none casters, maybe because I build my encounters in a way each character will have fun (well and I banned lots caster stuff :smalltongue:)

To me the biggest problem about d&d are complex maneuvers and how best to represent them with the very limited skills and stats available...

Not long ago there was a thread about jumping on the back of a large/huge enemy and stabbing him from there... or the I want to swing down this robe and try to take a swing at the bad guy maybe even taking him to the ground with me thing and many more possible scenarios.

Such complex fighting can be done, yes but not really perfectly most checks a player will have to do for those actions are only very rough approximation by the dm, which is okayish but it kind of feels clunky to me.

oh the grapple rules are really not that good too :smallwink:

Yuki Akuma
2010-06-10, 10:56 AM
Hm duno raw I would agree but in actual gameplay I very very rarely have any problem with casters being extremely more powerful then none casters,

The problem isn't power, it's versatility.

A tier 1 character can be less powerful than a tier 5 character if he picks bad options, but he still has more raw versatility.

The Glyphstone
2010-06-10, 10:57 AM
That's because they aren't major.

No, there's just fewer of them, both because 4E has less overall content and because WotC is actually paying attention to its player base this time around. Things like the Ranger of Infinite Arrows and the cleric who can lockdown and solo Orcus were major problems with 4E, but they got patched.

Gametime
2010-06-10, 11:30 AM
A poorly played sorcerer is tier 3 (edit. maybe even tier 4, if he picks all his spells around a niche, like a blaster or necromancer who doesn't take spells outside his field. This is almost a deliberate self nerf, but some people do play sorcs this way).
A well built and played paladin/fighter is tier 4.



Disregard this, I was wrong. :smallredface:

AstralFire
2010-06-10, 11:31 AM
I think Gnaeus and most posters able to use Tier terminology are aware of everything you just said and he was using that terminology purely as useful shorthand.

Foryn Gilnith
2010-06-10, 11:33 AM
The tier system is about the potential of classes, though, not builds.

Citation? Gnaeus is speaking under the premise that tiers apply to builds, which makes his statements entirely in line with the tier descriptions you've given. I, too, am operating under that premise; so if there's any substantial reason why tiers can't apply to builds I'd like to know it.

Gametime
2010-06-10, 11:38 AM
Citation? Gnaeus is speaking under the premise that tiers apply to builds, which makes his statements entirely in line with the tier descriptions you've given. I, too, am operating under that premise; so if there's any substantial reason why tiers can't apply to builds I'd like to know it.

Honestly, I'm not sure where I got that idea, since upon reviewing the original post I can't find any evidence for it and found quite a lot of evidence against it.

Apologies for the waste of time.

Glimbur
2010-06-10, 12:20 PM
Would giving skill points by race instead of class solve this problem?

This doesn't really solve the problem, but does cause a different one. Why is an orc rogue automatically good at fewer things than a human rogue? This assumes that you'd give humans more skill points than orcs, but the point is that it makes more sense for classes to determine skill points than race.

The idea of a class skill v a cross-class skill is intended to protect niches. The rogue has hide and move silently and search and disable device and etc because that's what rogues are supposed to be good at. The problem is that many skills, like Spot and Listen, describe things that you would want every character to be good at. It's ok if an archmage has trouble balancing on a tight rope, it's a problem if the town guard doesn't have Spot or Listen as class skills.

A related problem is that generally WoTC was stingy with skill points. For example, a human paladin with average (10 or 11) Int can be good at three things. Choose three from: cast spells in melee, diplomacy, non-magical healing skills, knowledge about nobles, knowledge about the religion you follow, how to ride that horse you get from your class features, and how to tell if people are lying. This is a problem.

My suggestion, which I think I got from this very forum, is that no-one but Int based casters gets only 2+ skills per level. 8+ should also be very rare. Fighters get 4+, Clerics get 4+, Rangers and Barbarians get 6+, etc.

Faleldir
2010-06-10, 12:29 PM
No, there's just fewer of them, both because 4E has less overall content and because WotC is actually paying attention to its player base this time around. Things like the Ranger of Infinite Arrows and the cleric who can lockdown and solo Orcus were major problems with 4E, but they got patched.

I don't consider those examples to be major problems. They are caused by specific powers and can be fixed by an errata. The major problems of 3.5 are things like "non-casters can't do anything useful with a standard action", which are caused by basic rules.

Gametime
2010-06-10, 12:38 PM
My suggestion, which I think I got from this very forum, is that no-one but Int based casters gets only 2+ skills per level. 8+ should also be very rare. Fighters get 4+, Clerics get 4+, Rangers and Barbarians get 6+, etc.

I'd rather leave clerics with 2+ as well; anyone who gets up to 9th level spells should be less skill than someone who trains to fight, in my opinion. But yeah, something along these lines helps out the skill system a bit.

I think going farther is a good idea, though. Skill consolidation, along the lines of what Pathfinder did, or skill groups, from Iron Heroes, are both great ways to ensure that classes can actually do cool stuff with skills. It is possible to go too far, but I've always found it annoying that if my ranger wants to be a good scout he needs Hide, Move Silently, Spot, and Listen. If he wants to track people, he needs Survival. If he wants to be able to actually work with his animal companion, he needs Handle Animal. He's completely out of luck if he wants to Ride that animal, unless he has an Int bonus, and he's utterly unable to branch out from what I would view as his required skills.

Your mileage may vary on how far the skill point boost/skill consolidation needs to go, though.


I don't consider those examples to be major problems. They are caused by specific powers and can be fixed by an errata. The major problems of 3.5 are things like "non-casters can't do anything useful with a standard action", which are caused by basic rules.

There's nothing within the 3.5 rules that prevent standard actions from being useful - ToB is a good example of noncasters getting something good to do with their standard action (although, admittedly, through a system that takes its cues from spellcasting). It came late in the run, and remarkably few other books did anything useful in that regard, but it's not impossible to make melee good in 3.5. WotC just didn't do it.

Faleldir
2010-06-10, 12:50 PM
There's nothing within the 3.5 rules that prevent standard actions from being useful - ToB is a good example of noncasters getting something good to do with their standard action

Yes, and look how many pages it took compared to a 4e errata, and how it replaced the Core classes instead of helping them.

Yuki Akuma
2010-06-10, 01:09 PM
This doesn't really solve the problem, but does cause a different one. Why is an orc rogue automatically good at fewer things than a human rogue?

Because Orcs have a -2 Int modifier and humans get +1 skill points per level? :smallwink:

Zeta Kai
2010-06-10, 01:24 PM
My suggestion, which I think I got from this very forum, is that no-one but Int based casters gets only 2+ skills per level. 8+ should also be very rare. Fighters get 4+, Clerics get 4+, Rangers and Barbarians get 6+, etc.

Yeah, I get the impression that WotC didn't really understand the skill system that they created (surprise!), which is a shame because certain elements of that system are excellent; it just has some horrible parts that you need to scrape off. I houseruled that all classes get +2 skill points per level... except the Wizard, the Archivist, & the Psion. I've had no complaints & no real problems.

Now, if I could just put a cap on ranks...

Eloi
2010-06-10, 01:24 PM
We need a "major problems with 4E" thread. All this 3E hate is unfair:smallfrown:

3E hate? That's hardly the intention. If I didn't love 3.5 so much I wouldn't be trying to figure out ways to fix the few problems it has.

Gametime
2010-06-10, 03:22 PM
Yes, and look how many pages it took compared to a 4e errata, and how it replaced the Core classes instead of helping them.

They could've errata'd the class features of the Warblade onto the Fighter, but that would've run counter to Wizards' 3.5 design intent.

They also could've introduced Maneuvers in the form of Tactical Feats, or just put Martial Study and Martial Stance into a book without the restriction on how many times you could take it. Or make which maneuvers are available based solely on level, without any school prerequisites. Perhaps require someone to pick one school from which they could choose maneuvers, to prohibit extreme cherrypicking, but remove the maneuver prerequisites for higher level ones - something like that.

Regardless, my point was not that 3.5 is perfect for melee. I only intended to show that the rules of 3.5 do not make it impossible for melee to Have Nice Things (TM).

To wit:

The major problems of 3.5 are things like "non-casters can't do anything useful with a standard action", which are caused by basic rules.
Is not entirely true.

Eldariel
2010-06-10, 03:55 PM
Yeah, I get the impression that WotC didn't really understand the skill system that they created (surprise!), which is a shame because certain elements of that system are excellent; it just has some horrible parts that you need to scrape off. I houseruled that all classes get +2 skill points per level... except the Wizard, the Archivist, & the Psion. I've had no complaints & no real problems.

Now, if I could just put a cap on ranks...

I've been giving 6 extra for all classes and it's been quite fine. Right now, in a game I'm DMing, every character has a Craft, Profession or Perform-skill, among others. Really, the wealth of customization the system offers is staggering but it's completely negated by the lack of skillpoints which simply makes it impossible to give a character all the skills you'd envision him having. There's an incredible amount of detail wasted in the system for this very reason.

I'm really loving the extra skills. Another thing I've considered is standard "+˝ level to all class skills" to represent development as a person, but I frankly prefer vast skillpoint pool as that allows customizing; I've got a blind character in the game I mentioned right now and having points in few arts wouldn't make any sense, really.

Lin Bayaseda
2010-06-10, 05:00 PM
Upon advancing from level 16 to level 17, a Fighter gets 1d10+Con bonus hit points, and +1 to all attacks. He also gets 2+Int bonus skill points, to distribute between his class skills, which are Jump, Climb, Swim, Ride and Handle Animal.

Upon advancing from level 16 to level 17, a Wizard gets the ability to cast Shapechange and Time Stop.

The disparity is obvious.

Gametime
2010-06-10, 05:07 PM
I'm really loving the extra skills. Another thing I've considered is standard "+˝ level to all class skills" to represent development as a person, but I frankly prefer vast skillpoint pool as that allows customizing; I've got a blind character in the game I mentioned right now and having points in few arts wouldn't make any sense, really.

I've been thinking about giving everyone the ability to use either their ranks or 1/2 their level for a skill, so that skills improve even if you can't invest in them. Possibly with the caveat that this only applies to skills that can be used untrained or in which you already have one rank. (I can see a wizard becoming a better jumper through his adventuring. A better shoe cobbler? Not so much.)


Upon advancing from level 16 to level 17, a Fighter gets 1d10+Con bonus hit points, and +1 to all attacks. He also gets 2+Int bonus skill points, to distribute between his class skills, which are Jump, Climb, Swim, Ride and Handle Animal.

Upon advancing from level 16 to level 17, a Wizard gets the ability to cast Shapechange and Time Stop.

The disparity is obvious.

I know things look bad for the wizard, but he does get 1d4+Con extra hit points and 2+Int bonus skill points to make up for the fact that he doesn't get +1 to attack. :smalltongue:

Kaiyanwang
2010-06-10, 05:10 PM
I'm really loving the extra skills. Another thing I've considered is standard "+˝ level to all class skills" to represent development as a person, but I frankly prefer vast skillpoint pool as that allows customizing; I've got a blind character in the game I mentioned right now and having points in few arts wouldn't make any sense, really.

I agree 100% here. Is better increase the skill point pool than add in the 1/2 level thing. More original PCs and is more likely to avoid senseless situations.

Runestar
2010-06-10, 06:59 PM
I've been thinking about giving everyone the ability to use either their ranks or 1/2 their level for a skill, so that skills improve even if you can't invest in them. Possibly with the caveat that this only applies to skills that can be used untrained or in which you already have one rank. (I can see a wizard becoming a better jumper through his adventuring. A better shoe cobbler? Not so much.)

What's the point? Unless you max out a certain skill, keep it maxxed out and maybe continue boosting it with various feats/gear/spells, it probably don't do you much good save for certain checks involving static DCs such as concentration (for regaining psionic focus) or tumble. Similarly, it wouldn't see much use since other players dedicated to boosting said skill will be better at it than you.

Is there a purpose to having a lv20 fighter with 10 ranks in survival when the barb has a check of +40? Or +10 move silently/hide when the rogue has +50? Any DC which is meant to challenge the rogue, you cannot pass anyways, so it is as good as having 0 ranks. If you can pass it, the rogue can never fail, so why even bother setting a DC and rolling? :smallamused:

It didn't work in 4e, I doubt it will work in 3e either.

Eldariel
2010-06-10, 07:42 PM
What's the point? Unless you max out a certain skill, keep it maxxed out and maybe continue boosting it with various feats/gear/spells, it probably don't do you much good save for certain checks involving static DCs such as concentration (for regaining psionic focus) or tumble. Similarly, it wouldn't see much use since other players dedicated to boosting said skill will be better at it than you.

Is there a purpose to having a lv20 fighter with 10 ranks in survival when the barb has a check of +40? Or +10 move silently/hide when the rogue has +50? Any DC which is meant to challenge the rogue, you cannot pass anyways, so it is as good as having 0 ranks. If you can pass it, the rogue can never fail, so why even bother setting a DC and rolling? :smallamused:

It didn't work in 4e, I doubt it will work in 3e either.

Well, for some things it does help (physical skills, observational skills, etc.) and for others, it helps some. I mean, sure, you won't be beating level-appropriate encounters focusing on some skill with opposed check, but you won't lose your heirloom sword to petty thief anymore, and while you may not be able to balance on clouds, you don't at least fall of a plank.

It just...makes someone feel somewhat more exceptional on high levels without really influencing the crunch too much. And helps when dealing with lower level opponents or having large situational bonuses or such; sure, you may not be able to sneak into the BBEG's lair, but some keeps, definitely and if you have magical aid...well, that'll get you far. It's, of course, more relevant in non-PC centric games where the world isn't scaled to the PCs' levels.

Ormur
2010-06-10, 10:18 PM
The obvious problem is of course the imbalanced classes and options but there are a few aesthetic thing about the whole system that bug me. They don't make me enjoy playing the game less but it's just untidy. Here follows an incoherent rant.

People always talk about divorcing fluff from mechanics, letting you play your concept exactly the way you want and I'm fine with that. I've seen and started to build incredibly convoluted combos to make some interesting concept work. This doesn't exactly fit what I imagine was the initial idea with a few vaguely archetypical classes in core plus a few prestige classes for specialization. But when you start working with the entire oeuvre of D&D you've got so many options that those complex characters that fulfil your idea of both mechanics and fluff start to make sense. There are hundreds of feats, prestige classes, spells and items to pick from.

Some of those options have a lot of fluff attached to them but many of them are generic. A lot of options are also either so good or useful that they become mandatory in certain builds or pure crap you'd never use except for fluff reasons. When you offer players so many options of such a varying quality both mechanically and conceptually I don't see why you shouldn't go all the way. You're forced to pick feats and class features separately as you level up and neither have to be picked according to a consistent theme anyway.

I think a system with so many fluff-independent options should allow you to pick and choose mechanical features much more freely. If you want certain things the only way might be to dip a certain class or take a certain feat whether it meshes with the rest of your concept. Instead of classes-prestige classes-feats-skills to build your character you could start within a broad archetype that somehow limited your options but gave you a lot of freedom with those available. When you advanced in level you'd pick a new skill or class feature and having more books would just give you a bigger selection of features instead of adding a lot of prestige class concepts. The entire system would be the rough equivalent of a feat tree.

I know it's not really a fair criticism of 3.5 demanding it to be another system but the arbitrary division of features between (prestige-)classes and feats just doesn't seem to make much sense.

erikun
2010-06-10, 11:59 PM
We need a "major problems with 4E" thread. All this 3E hate is unfair:smallfrown:
It's because 3e is played more and discussed more here. I don't think I've seen anyone asking to patch all the problems present in 4e on this board. (In the interest of not derailing the thread, I'll leave it at that.)


As for the problems with 3.5e, I'm one of the people who think there are a number of very large flaws in the system itself. As such, I'm inclined to say "all of it," or at least enough of it that everything in the system would be effected by changes.

One other thing you need to consider: How will your game be affected by these changes? How will your players feel when you tell them that, say, all healers must be Bards or melee Crusaders, or that all your spellcasters run off Charisma, or that the only Intelligence-based classes are a pair of rogues? Getting to play an iconic character is part of the fantasy, and some people will wonder why they can't play bookish fireball chuckers or holy priests without armor.

It might be better to know what problems to avoid rather than banning anything that might become problematic. There are a number of fixes for each class, some rather simple, that at least avoid the worst of the unintentional abuses. Certainly a Wizard that can turn the entire party invisible and grant them flight is more useful than a lockpicking Rogue, but is it really bad to have one in a party?