3.5 is bad?

[rockdeworld]

In the midst of answering another person's question on these boards, I said essentially "spells are better than class features." Do people agree with that? I think it's true, at least for levels 10+.

In addition, I think D&D suffers from the problem of "trap" level up choices. Basically, if you pick Wizard at level 1, and Monk at level 2, and Rogue at level 3, you're stronger than Wizard 1, Monk 1, or Rogue 1, but weaker than Wizard 3, Monk 3 (debatably), or Rogue 3. And there's no going back. You're a level 3 character, facing CR 3 encounters, and require 6000xp to level up. Essentially: you picked a bad class/feat/ability score? Better burn the character sheet, because your character is going nowhere. Ragnarok Online has the same problem, where you have a limited number of stat/skill points, and if you assign them wrong, your character sucks.

And I think both of those things are wrong.

I think the class features of a few classes shouldn't dominate the rest of the game, and I think characters should get stronger as they level up, not weaker.

Games like Vampire: the Requiem or Exalted don't have levels, just increases in power. That means (presumably, since I haven't played them much) that even if you increase totally unnecessary stats, you're still stronger than before, and not relatively weaker than you should be. In a side-by-side comparison, I think 3.5 is worse.

Thoughts?

[nyarlathotep]

I'd argue that it's only part of the problem. It's not "you can't go back" as all rpgs have that but that it is assumed that all numbers will continue scaling in the same way forever. In particular the decision that all classes should continue gaining hit dice their entire careers was one of the worst changes from AD&D to 3rd edition. Hence why it is harder for similar enemies to maintain similar levels of threat throughout an adventurers lifespan the way they could in AD&D.

Exalted and Masquerade are bad for similar reasons mechanically both sharing essentially the same system. In theory total xp of a party should be able to tell you what enemies they can face. In practice it fall far more into "did you take one of the trap choices, the good choices, or the god tier choices" than even 3.5 did and the GM tailors crippled, decent, or cheese encounters than even core-only 3.5 (the least balanced version of 3.5) does. White Wolf games have no formal levels but similarly optimized characters will still have the same differences between them that a level based system would give and as such it is simply D&D if D&D only had people with PC classes, only really fixing the issues with too much hp scaling.

tl;dr 3.5 is bad Vampire and Exalted are worse

Edit: Sorry I thought you were talking about Vampire the Masquerade not Requiem. Requiem is fairly well balanced from my experience with a few standouts in the trap and cheese categories, but doesn't doesn't succeed more because it is leveless, just better balancing and design behind it. I'd still rank it as only slightly more balanced than AD&D.

[Big Fau]

The problems you are outlining are related to something called "System Mastery". A high degree of system mastery can make a Monk 1/Rogue 1/Wizard 1 character useful, but that same degree of mastery would be better used on a Monk 3 (can't believe I just said that), Rogue 3, or Wizard 3. Conversely, a low degree of system mastery means close to the opposite: THe Rogue/Monk/Wizard hybrid would be damn-close to useless, but the player wouldn't be faring much better with a pure Rogue, Monk, or Wizard. Furthermore, it is possible to "undo" a bad character creation choice during gameplay via the Retraining rules in PH2.

Spells being overpowered is a recognized design flaw, and a good amount of that is because of D&D's legacy. Unfortunately, magic is ingrained into the game at it's core; the developers designed the entire system around the concept of the traditional Rogue/Cleric/Wizard/Fighter party and removing magic makes this incredibly apparent.

As for WW's systems being "better", I find this highly subjective. PB systems may seem more balanced overall because everyone can take whatever they want, but that just rewards people with a high degree of system mastery far more than a system like D&D. Such systems are notoriously easy to break.


Ultimately, each system is a tool. Like all tools, it all depends on the skill of the user.

[Spuddles]

Try 4e. It addressed most of the problems while still allowing some level of customization for classes.

Of course, you may find that every class is virtually like every other class for its intended role, but that's kind of the only solution to what you are complaining about.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Oh come on. Exalted isn't worse than 3.5. It at least has a good core rulebook (I mean, mass combat is messed up and social combat is only slightly better, but the majority of Solar options are viable, and it's pretty easy to see that "combat sorcerer" isn't going to work). Also, the errata actually does something (although there's a whooole lot of it).

[The Glyphstone]

Oh come on. Exalted isn't worse than 3.5. It at least has a good core rulebook (I mean, mass combat is messed up and social combat is only slightly better, but the majority of Solar options are viable, and it's pretty easy to see that "combat sorcerer" isn't going to work). Also, the errata actually does something (although there's a whooole lot of it).

When your errata is longer than the book it's errata-ing...is 'good' really a term than can be applied?

[GenericMook]

When your errata is longer than the book it's errata-ing...is 'good' really a term than can be applied?

It's an indication that the designers have some idea of what's broken with the system.

WotC, on the other hand...

[rockdeworld]

Edit: Sorry I thought you were talking about Vampire the Masquerade not Requiem.
Actually... I'm not sure :smallfrown: The names are too similar for me, so thanks for providing info on both.

[nyarlathotep]

It's an indication that the designers have some idea of what's broken with the system.

WotC, on the other hand...

Then do we get to count tome of battle, a book shorter than the player's handbook and the exalted errata, as being WotC's core book errata? In fact you could take it and expanded psionics handbook and just call it "New 3.5 errata" and be just as legitimate and be balanced better.

Exalted has the same problems relating to severe differences in player competency based on system mastery and options. Difference is that 3.5 became more interbalanced with increasing non-core options whereas exalted became less balanced with it differing exaltations being of vastly different levels of competency.

[White_Drake]

Try 4e. It addressed most of the problems while still allowing some level of customization for classes.

Of course, you may find that every class is virtually like every other class for its intended role, but that's kind of the only solution to what you are complaining about.

What about Legend?

[WhatBigTeeth]

3e is terrible in a lot of ways, and isn't a game I'll ever introduce to unfamiliar players, but it does have a huge number of players who know it, and it dominates other options for a certain M:tG-type play, where players can fiddle with, prep and analyze their decks builds for days before the game, then get that feeling of satisfaction when everything works out with the clever combination of cards abilities and items that the build combines.

[Psyren]

In the midst of answering another person's question on these boards, I said essentially "spells are better than class features." Do people agree with that? I think it's true, at least for levels 10+.

Yes; The Sorcerer has exactly one class feature aside from its spells, yet is better than 3/4 of the other classes in the game.



In addition, I think D&D suffers from the problem of "trap" level up choices. Basically, if you pick Wizard at level 1, and Monk at level 2, and Rogue at level 3, you're stronger than Wizard 1, Monk 1, or Rogue 1, but weaker than Wizard 3, Monk 3 (debatably), or Rogue 3. And there's no going back. You're a level 3 character, facing CR 3 encounters, and require 6000xp to level up. Essentially: you picked a bad class/feat/ability score? Better burn the character sheet, because your character is going nowhere.

This is hugely exaggerated. If this logic were true then dips would ruin your character forever. Since they obviously don't, it's clear that a lost level here or there may weaken a build, but not cripple it, and open interesting avenues for PrCs and feats that may otherwise not be explored.



I think the class features of a few classes shouldn't dominate the rest of the game, and I think characters should get stronger as they level up, not weaker.

1) Nothing "dominates the game" unless your table lets it.
2) ...They do? :smallconfused: Unless you make intentionally gimp choices, but the obviously good or even okay ones outnumber the traps imo.

[ericgrau]

3.5 is a relatively good system or we wouldn't all be here and it wouldn't sell so well. The bigger your fan-base the more people there are to complain.

Almost every single game I've ever witnessed or heard of works out pretty wall regardless of class selection, simply from a normal level of civility: Neither holding back and not trying, nor spending hours/days to find the most broken thing you can. Problems don't come up nearly as often in play as they do in discussion. It's almost as if most people are trying to play nice.

[Slipperychicken]

And there's no going back.

PHB 2 would like a word with you. Especially Chapter 8: Rebuilding Your Character (pages 191-203), which solves this exact issue by both acknowledging the problem you describe and introducing the Retraining and Rebuilding rules.

[rockdeworld]

This is hugely exaggerated. If this logic were true then dips would ruin your character forever. Since they obviously don't, it's clear that a lost level here or there may weaken a build, but not cripple it, and open interesting avenues for PrCs and feats that may otherwise not be explored.
I think Wizard 1/Monk 1/Rogue 1 actually is worse than Wizard 3, Monk 3 or Rogue 3. It doesn't apply to all class dips.


PHB 2 would like a word with you. Especially pages 191-206, which address this exact issue by both acknowledging the problem you describe and introducing the Retraining and Rebuilding rules.
I don't have PHB 2 and those rules aren't public domain :smallfrown: Am I in the minority?

[ericgrau]

I think Wizard 1/Monk 1/Rogue 1 actually is worse than Wizard 3, Monk 3 or Rogue 3. It doesn't apply to all class dips.
Flurry of sneak attack chill touches from my high CL scrolls. :smallbiggrin: Could work well and scale with more levels of either monk or rogue. Or both.

I get the point though. Monk 5 / rogue 5 / wizard 5 vs any 15 might have been more clear.

[Garan]

Flurry of sneak attack chill touches from my high CL scrolls. :smallbiggrin: Could work well and scale with more levels of either monk or rogue. Or both.

I get the point though. Monk 5 / rogue 5 / wizard 5 vs any 15 might have been more clear.

Fighter 15? It could honestly go either way there.

[Slipperychicken]

I don't have PHB 2 and those rules aren't public domain :smallfrown:

Really, they amount to "perform a special quest, or maybe pay for a few weeks of training, and you can change any aspect of your character you please, even your race". Our Monk1/Wizard1/Rogue1 could probably do a quest to come back to the "proper path" (whether that's wizardry, his monastic ideals, or criminal enterprise), or even rediscover himself as a completely different class, with different skill points and feats. Or he could encounter a spectacular event which permanently transforms him from a Half-Orc into a Human.


Also, good on you, for resisting the temptation to illegally download the easily-located PDFs of D&D rulebooks. Although it may not cost WotC any sales (3.5 is out of print after all), or have a very large chance of legal penalty, such reprehensible acts of villainy are far beneath honest consumers like ourselves. And we should be proud of that.

[Mithril Leaf]

All things have issues, we just know 3.5 well enough to recognize them. If we didn't spend all day erry day here, we wouldn't know how bad it is.

[Acanous]

Even Rogue 15 would have problems against a lv 15 character that had UMD and 5 levels of Wizard.

[Answerer]

What about Legend?
My signature may indicate some bias, but at least in my opinion, yes, Legend goes a long way towards balancing out options and eliminating both traps and cheese, and in my personal view (that is informed by lots of Legend play and extremely little 4e play), Legend does a better job of allowing character customization and uniqueness.

[Cambrian]

I'd say 3rd and its descendants are good.

What is has is internal class imbalances. Spellcasters (and, to a lesser extent, psionic users) tend to be better than non-spellcasters.

If your group doesn't know this (and you get blaster wizard and cleric healers) then it is not a problem.

If your group does know this it becomes a problem unless:
1. The group comes to an agreement and matches tiers and optimization.
2. The DM caters to underpowered classes ensuring they find the tools they need to do what they do and/or provides enough content where all classes find themselves useful.
3. The players of the better classes ensure they don't overtake the game through roleplaying limits.

Ideally a balance of all three (and other solutions I'm overlooking) would make for the best experience.

I firmly believe all roleplaying experiences are as good as the group allows them to be.

[willpell]

3.5 is NOT a good system. It is, however, a nice collection of parts which are possible to disassemble, switch out, and recombine into a good system. I don't know of a game which has more useful crunch than d20, and certainly none that are as popular (HERO System is probably the runner-up, but has a serious problem with entry barriers, which D&D at least begins to avert with the prebuilt classes; the problem is that they forgot to specify that these are training wheels rather than the be-all and end-all of play). I'm constantly tinkering with 3.5 rules and trying to turn them into what they should be, and I'd never have bothered trying if they didn't have large pieces of the final product mixed in with the dreck.

[Spuddles]

It's an indication that the designers have some idea of what's broken with the system.

WotC, on the other hand...

Bundled and sold their errata in new books.

Pretty clever if you ask me.


What about Legend?

Never played it. Read through a late Alpha of it.


1) Nothing "dominates the game" unless your table lets it.

That's kind of an Oberoni Fallacy, is it not? No system has any problems if you fix them....


3.5 is NOT a good system. It is, however, a nice collection of parts which are possible to disassemble, switch out, and recombine into a good system. I don't know of a game which has more useful crunch than d20, and certainly none that are as popular (HERO System is probably the runner-up, but has a serious problem with entry barriers, which D&D at least begins to avert with the prebuilt classes; the problem is that they forgot to specify that these are training wheels rather than the be-all and end-all of play). I'm constantly tinkering with 3.5 rules and trying to turn them into what they should be, and I'd never have bothered trying if they didn't have large pieces of the final product mixed in with the dreck.

That's largely how I feel about the 3.5 system, but end up playing it as M:tG as an above poster pointedly observed.

[Justyn]

When your errata is longer than the book it's errata-ing...is 'good' really a term than can be applied?

To be fair, the errata is errata for virtually every book in the entire game, not just the core book, in addition to a web series that was hosted on White Wolf's blogs.

But yeah, there's a reason that they're making a third edition for Exalted instead of trying to fix the mechanical mess that is second edition.

[Khedrac]

Going back to the original post, the question of "better" is not actually that meaningful.

Questions like "which is better" are subjective and depend on one's personal preferences (and you can waste a lot of time trying to persuade people otherwise). The key test of how good a game really is how enjoyable it is! - and a system that is mechanically terrible can be far more enjoyable than a well-thought out one. Then, of course, the people one plays with tend to be more important than the system.

If you must compare systems, it is better to compare similar systems (like the variants of D&D but that may be stretching "similar" a bit far) rather than systems that have totally different mechanics (at which point I will reach for Avalon Hill RuneQuest...).

And as for all the problems with D&D there are loads of problems with virtually any system you care to name, in fact the more material there is out for a system, the more problems there will be!
For instance, I have never played Vampire: The Requiem, but I have played some Vampire: the Masquerade and it's a system where my dice hate me. What do I mean? - well for me, the more points I have in a stat the worse I can mess up.
Yes, V:tM is a system where a novice can fail, but only an expert can truly fail spectacularly. My best effort was rolling 8 dice for sneak with a target of 7 - result net 5 fumbles (I cannot remember the term for 1s). I would have been better off rolling fewer dice.

[Larkas]

What about Legend?

I was going to suggest that too. It retains the ability to customize your character while introducing balance to the game. You can still fail spectacularly at it, but mainly only if you make something the book specifically advises you against, such as taking 3 defensive tracks.

[Psyren]

I think Wizard 1/Monk 1/Rogue 1 actually is worse than Wizard 3, Monk 3 or Rogue 3. It doesn't apply to all class dips.

Of course it is but that doesn't mean your entire build is RUINED FOREVER! For instance, you could add a couple more random classes on there, enter Ur-Priest and be more than capable of CR 15 encounters at ECL 15.

Mainly I'm pointing out the dangers of generalizing like this. Dips (and similar delays, like LA buyoff and dead levels on entering a PrC) work because the setback isn't enough to stymie your whole progression so long as you have a clear goal in mind.

And remember, you're usually not alone; there's supposed to be 3-4 other schlubs helping to cover for you. This comes in especially handy when you've gone up a level without gaining much power.



I don't have PHB 2 and those rules aren't public domain :smallfrown: Am I in the minority?

OGL retraining = play patty-cake with a wight.