3rd editionand what bugs you about it

[ngilop]

hey everybody, this is in the spirit of the Drow thread found here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=273264) anbd its is basically what really ticks me off about what happened with D&D with 3rd ed and the authors and developers refusal to accept any sort of acknowledgement of guilt over it. Mostly im focusing on Fighters here becuase of all the classes every published the fighter is the single worse class in 3rd ed, and just about every class in the game can do his job better than he can.


But to me high level fighters should be the D&D equivalents of Heracles, Gilgamesh, Beowulf, Roland and Indrajit.

At high levels a fighter should be capabel of sundering mountains, fighting a diety for three days before dieing, or managing to take on an invincible monster.

All thing that we in the real world know is impossbile with our real world science and what ever elses. But in the D&D world, things opperate a little differently.

I see no reason why a fighter could be so well trained and so skilled that from their own warrior's spirit burst their weapon into flames or move so fast that they effectively teleport ( like in that one anime.. idk its name though... it a dumb name is all i can remember)

Should Wizards(the company that is) have given this stuff to fighters and the other classes when the came out with 3rd ed. yes they should have, but for some reason they thought that mundane classes are not allowed to have good things and so kept giving wizards, clerics and druid all the best of whatevers.

I mean to me, a high level rogue's stealth abilities should be no different that what a greater invisibility and silence nets you.

I guess a lot fo people just do not like the idea of the mundane classes being able to be capabel of such great and heroic deeds and actions.

I myself, refuse to allow them to be relegated to the realm of inadequacies.
FOr me it should be like this
Sme tap into their inner selves and find utter calm in battle, others find themselves in their weapon and become preternaturally skilled, whilst others tap into reserves of powers that are not fully understood able to cause their weapon to burst into flames or teleport short distances.

I just wrote down what i expect from fighters in a universe where magic is teh norm and people can fly, launch fireballs, bring others back from the dead, shape shift into creature X, talk to a dragon one day and then come to battle with the walking dead the next.

In D&D I think the a person born, raised and based upon the rules of the rest of D&D should be BASED upon those rules, not the rules from our real world. and Really to me that is the core problem of what is wrong with Fighters and Rgoues and to a lesser degree rangers, paladins, and monks.

[the_archduke]

Use the Tome of Battle

/thread

[Yora]

I don't want to play a spellcaster. I would like to play a warrior without having to use spells with the name filled off.

[Garagos]

Use the Tome of Battle

/thread

^ Exactly this!

EDIT: Bah, this was supposed to be pointing at the_archduke's comment :smallredface:

[hamishspence]

I don't want to play a spellcaster. I would like to play a warrior without having to use spells with the name filled off.

While a few are "spell-ish"- many work out more like souped up versions of existing feats. Mithril Tornado, for example, is basically just a better Whirlwind Attack.

[ngilop]

Use the Tome of Battle

/thread

what an amazing way to go completely off topic. saying


Use the Tome of Battle

/thread


not only has noting at all to do with what bugs you about 3rd ed but it is also a snarky and degrading insult aimed at me, which by the way I compeltely love. sarcasm is heavy in that last phrase if one should miss it.

[Karnith]

I don't want to play a spellcaster. I would like to play a warrior without having to use spells with the name filled off.
I hear this a lot, and while I can sort of see it with the Swordsage (mystical powers being mystical powers and all that), I don't get it so much with the Warblade or Crusader. Using their maneuvers is still just going up to someone and hitting them with your sword. You give it a fancy name, sure, but you're usually still just hitting someone when you use your maneuvers. I've certainly never felt like a spellcaster when playing a Warblade.
EDIT:
what an amazing way to go completely off topic. saying
not only has noting at all to do with what bugs you about 3rd ed but it is also a snarky and degrading insult aimed at me, which by the way I compeltely love. sarcasm is heavy in that last phrase if one should miss it.
Well, to be honest, playing a character who has taken levels in the Tome of Battle classes is a good way to play one of the heroic, warrior figures that you were talking about in your opening post. Fighters, rogues, monks, and the like are all ineffective in combat (well, and out of it, too), but the ToB classes are capable of sundering mountains and all of those other things that they can't do so well under the base rules. They are still restricted by a lot of the mundane classes' weaknesses (or, rather, they still pale in comparison to full spellcasting), but they are leagues more competent than their core counterparts and if you want to play a suitably epic martial character, ToB classes are probably your best bet.

(Unless you're at super-high optimization levels, in which case you'd probably want to go back to taking fighter levels, but even so)

On topic, I have never liked the limited scope for fighting styles in 3.5; sword and boarding being so poorly-supported in particular bugs me.

[Deadline]

I saw a great proposal for an alternate weapon system for d&d a while back. It was called something like "weapons as effects" or the like. The basic gist was that it was the warrior, not the weapon, that was deadly. The weapon just had some different effects. Essentially, it took the weapon damage out of the equation and instead made damage a function of BAB and level. So high level fighters would be capable of dishing out 10d6 of damage, because they were highly skilled. And there was a well thought out conversion chart that let the fighter trade dice of damage out for effects, at the time of the attack. I know I saved it off somewhere, now I just need to find it.

The weapon mattered less for damage, but had other effects (a longsword did slashing damage, flails granted their normal bonus to trip, etc.).

[ngilop]

can people just get back on the ACTUAL TOPIC of the thread and isnetad of saying why you love/don't love the Tome of Battle, just say what irks you about 3rd ed. and if its nothing atall, then please for the love of god/buddha/ the maiden/whatever higher power you want don't post.

or at least at teh very minimum humantiy of it all, don't be a jerk and just refain from posting whatever it is that has nothing at all to do with this thread's intent.

[Silvanoshei]

Nothing bugs me about 3.x, because it's so adaptable.

Tired of OP wizard, DM your world with no magic. Or have your players go up against other wizards. Combat is slow, but interestingly strategic.

[Aegis013]

... but it is also a snarky and degrading insult aimed at me...

I'm pretty certain it was not supposed to be an insult, but rather a simplistic solution for your complaint. A lot of people on this board are like that. They want to help you find solutions.

On topic, the thing that irks me most about 3.5 is how difficult it is to find a DM with sufficient system mastery to keep the game interesting and internally consistent. The whole benefit of having 80,000,000 options is that everything can be different every time, but it's hard to do when you encounter the same thing over and over, or the DM hasn't read through the Spells and never uses them to spice up encounters or events and instead relies on weird homebrew that doesn't necessarily makes sense and then handwaves all the inconsistencies and expects immersion to not be compromised.

[Dark.Revenant]

The ToB system is the closest to what you want, honestly. Having a selection of maneuvers to do crazy stuff like you describe works fine. The only other option is to replace all the martial classes with several dozen (not exaggerating) alternatives that have the crazy abilities you want, in various combinations as to be thematically interesting. Obviously, this is way more work and in general makes a poorer product.

Third option: Make your own list of maneuvers and modify the existing martial classes to use the maneuver system.

[Deadline]

can people just get back on the ACTUAL TOPIC of the thread and isnetad of saying why you love/don't love the Tome of Battle, just say what irks you about 3rd ed. and if its nothing atall, then please for the love of god/buddha/ the maiden/whatever higher power you want don't post.

My apologies, I didn't realize you weren't looking for a solution. I quite literally have to way no relate to people who don't want solutions but still want to complain, so I'll bow out of this thread.

[ArcturusV]

I suppose one of the things that bugged me is just how... certain neat ideas get poorly implemented (Truenaming?), or they are completely ignored after their initial release and you never hear a peep out of them again.

I also kind of miss the idea of retirement and moving on to bigger and better things being suggested and coded into the system. I liked the idea in earlier editions that, when your Thief starts to hit level 10 you're not necessarily just delving into random dungeons, picking pockets, and so on, you're looking towards building a criminal empire, and only going out on the most important jobs that require your personal touch (Otherwise you got apprentice cutpurses to do it, etc). Or that a high level fighter might become a great military leader or lord, etc.

I mean yeah, I CAN do it in 3rd edition... but the game doesn't really presume that you ever will. There's nothing really plugged into the game to support that ideal. Instead it is focused on the same thing more or less. What a first level adventuring party, and a 20th level adventuring party does is thematically and superficially the same. The only difference is instead of killing a Kobold Camp or something they're fighting off some Aberration infested dungeon.

I dunno. Probably sounds silly but I do miss that shifting gears at mid/high level to a different sort of game and themes. Where your character is winding down and you become less directly involved until the excrement is truly intersecting with the oscillating rotational blades.

[Larkas]

You might want to take a look at this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=240706). But then again, it just seems that you want to criticize 3.5, not do something about it, so, uh...

Well, what I don't like about 3.5 is that it's so rules-heavy that at times rules just get in the way of storytelling. It's not a deep hate, just something that mildly inconveniences me, and I think that it is an acceptable compromise for being such a robust system, but there you have it.

[Agincourt]

This thread would probably be more to the OP's liking if he posted it to the 4e forum; I'm sure they'd love to unload their criticisms, but it doesn't really sound like 3e players want to criticize the game they've stayed loyal to.

[Lord Il Palazzo]

can people just get back on the ACTUAL TOPIC of the thread and isnetad of saying why you love/don't love the Tome of Battle, just say what irks you about 3rd ed. and if its nothing atall, then please for the love of god/buddha/ the maiden/whatever higher power you want don't post.

or at least at teh very minimum humantiy of it all, don't be a jerk and just refain from posting whatever it is that has nothing at all to do with this thread's intent.Was the thread's intent to discuss the things that bug people or just to list them off without comment? It seems like people are just discussing the previous answeres which tends to be a given in this kind of "list a bunch of opinions" thread, especially for the opinions given in the OP.


I don't want to play a spellcaster. I would like to play a warrior without having to use spells with the name filled off.I've seen this before and never really gotten it. The arguement sounds like "I want fighters to be able to do cool things, but I don't want the cool things to be specific because then they're too much like spells." I don't really see any other way to do this besides just giving high level fighers a blank check to do whatever cool things you think of at the moment (which sounds like a rules nightmare). Is there something I'm missing? I mean, I've always heard it said that the problem with mundane classes is their lack of versatility, that any situation besides the one thing they do well (attack with my weapon, jump out from behind the corner and stab someone, etc.) is beyond them; how can a class be more versatile without being given more things it can do? Is there a way wizards could have made a fighter that does what you want "without having to use spells with the name filled off"?

(I'm not trying to start a fight or arguement; I'm really trying to understand this argument that seems to come up any time the words "Tome" and "Battle" appear in the same sentence.)

More topically:
I really wish there were more variety in weapons without having to go into exotic territory. Just giving each category (light, one-handed, two-handed) a range of dice sizes and critical ranges/multipliers is a little bland. Having little things like "reach" and "can be used to trip" is nice but it's just not enough to make it interesting. Having things like bonuses against certain types of armor or affecting the user's AC (since it's easier to parry with some weapons than others) would be nice, but I still don't know if it's enough.

This could tie in with what Karnith said about wanting to have more fighting styles. Having different weapons be better or worse (in some way) for different ways of fighting would make a lot of sense.

I've also always been dissapointed with how unbalanced feats are. I know that some will inherently be better than others, but it's just sad how many are so bad. Just looking at core, you've got the choice between Power Attack and Toughness and between Leadership and Nimble Fingers. It would have been nice to have the difference between bad and good be a little narrower.

Lastly, if spells are going to have material components, I wish they meant something more often. Just assuming that a caster always has the things he needs, is carrying "enough" for any number of castings and can always pull them out at a moments' notice makes the existance of any material component that isn't dirt cheap pretty much pointless. I'd like to see components cost a little more and actually be tracked. That way, spells that don't need them would be more valuable and players would have to economize their magic not just for the day but for the expedition, until they could find a place to get more colored sand and bat guano.

[Phelix-Mu]

So here is my take.

Core-only, mundanes are way beneath casters, but the real problem is that the much more flexible spellcasters got more cool effects and more cool effect combinations with every expansion. Eventually, spellcasters are better than each other class at filling the role of that other class. Spells make the caster a better skill monkey than the skill monkey. Spells make the caster harder to kill than the fighter. Spells give the caster better offensive abilities than the fighter.

What did mundanes get? Pretty skimpy here, ToB aside. Expanded skill usage; casters can use these rules, too, and better since they have access to many buffs that optimize skills. More feats; hard to get less flexible than more feats. More items; casters also got more items, and mundanes eventually become very, very attached to their items in order to keep up with the power curve.

So, how to fix this. ToB did go part of the way, but it's one book for mundanes against spells in every book published in 3e. The main way that I can see is that a DM should heavily limit access to spells beyond core, requiring research or access to esoteric resources not available at low levels.

Action economy dissolved late in 3e. While belt of battle is cool for mundanes, it is also good for casters. Casters, meanwhile, have access to some very silly things; initiative op, celerity, arcane fusion, arcane spellsurge, Travel Devotion (also useful to mundanes, but really need a cleric dip to op it, so better for casters), metamagic reducers, mark of the enlightened soul et al, body out of body, Craft Contingent Spell, spell sequencer/matrix, the craziness of persisted DMM (no need to buff before battle when buffs are perpertual), and so on, and so on. The list is practically endless, and it all helps casters do more, faster, and, as always, better than mundanes.

How to improve this? I did like the comment about having damage based on class level more than weapon-in-hand. That sounds like it might help. Any combat class should develop DR/magic as levels increase, to the point where late in the game, non-magic weapon damage is irrelevant. At the same time, dedicated melee builds should have ACF for granting DR/- or bonuses to AC. Fighters should be able to generate bursts of vitality a few times/encouter, adding in temp hit points = class levelxCon Mod, or fast healing 5 or 10 for a certain number of rounds.

In ToB, they try to make skill use a counter to spell supremacy, particularly with Diamond Mind and some other sundry maneuvers. All mundane classes should have special uses for skills appropriate to their class, without needing feats to get it. I've considered adding some kind of system of "major skill tricks" built into all mundane classes, with a progression of free skill tricks with added utility built into rogue, fighter, ranger, etc.

But, I think, in the end, you will be hard pressed to boost mundanes enough to achieve balance without somehow nerfing casters. The basic mechanic of spells is kind of inherently more powerful than whatever the fighter can think to do with his sword (massive amounts of feats included).

[Aegis013]

So, how to fix this. ToB did go part of the way, but it's one book for mundanes against spells in every book published in 3e. The main way that I can see is that a DM should heavily limit access to spells beyond core, requiring research or access to esoteric resources not available at low levels.

While I'm not sure I agree with everything you say here, I'm pretty certain that heavily restricting access to spells beyond core isn't your best bet. The vast majority of the most powerful spells come out of the Player's Handbook.

Grease, Obscuring Mist, Glitterdust, Alter Self, Haste/Slow, Polymorph, Evard's Black Tentacles, Solid Fog to name a few lower level gems. A lot of the most absurd spells also come from core; Shapechange, Gate, Wish, Planar Binding line, Maze, Control Winds among others.

While there are certainly some spells from splats that are absurd, their numbers are comparable from all of the splats combined versus those simply from core. Things like Mindrape, Ice Assassin, Shivering Touch, even without these, a lot of the most powerful spellcaster tricks are available in core.

[RFLS]

I saw a great proposal for an alternate weapon system for d&d a while back. It was called something like "weapons as effects" or the like. The basic gist was that it was the warrior, not the weapon, that was deadly. The weapon just had some different effects. Essentially, it took the weapon damage out of the equation and instead made damage a function of BAB and level. So high level fighters would be capable of dishing out 10d6 of damage, because they were highly skilled. And there was a well thought out conversion chart that let the fighter trade dice of damage out for effects, at the time of the attack. I know I saved it off somewhere, now I just need to find it.

The weapon mattered less for damage, but had other effects (a longsword did slashing damage, flails granted their normal bonus to trip, etc.).

I think that some of the things published for D&D Next (can't we just call it 5.0?) use similar mechanics.

On topic, uh....what's the point of this thread, exactly? Literally every complaint about 3.5 can be worked around because of its pretty massive flexibility.

I feel like there's a joke in there about the designers having their heads up their asses sometimes, but I just can't find it...

[ngilop]

the intent of this thread was simple to say what bugs you about 3rd ed.

nobody can ever like 100% of something.

ArcturusV hit the nail on the head in regards to what my intent on this thread is about, if i wnated to 'fix it' id just post homebrew stuff on the homebrew forum ( which I have)

take a look at what Lord Il Palazzo said about feats. according to 3rd ed toughness is equal to say.. natural spell. but he and myself would wager 'no that is not the case"

Just becuase somebody says that something about an item bugs him dosn't mean that he hates the entirety of that said item.

some people like baseball but dislike the Desingated hitter. They still buy tickets and supprt their team(s) though. Just becase one little aspect they disagree with does not mean they HATE and refuse to accept the rest of baseball, which is what you claim must be so when I say X about 3rd ed bugs me'


take a look at what LArkas said about how sometimes the rules gets in the way of the stroytelling.

I made a ton of feats for the fighter to help compensate for his lack of actual comat worhtyness and so here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=14564938&postcount=1) is a link to them

anywyas I just want to stress again that just becuase a particular specific attribute of something is disliked by you does not mean that the whole thing is an abomination and you can quite enjoy the rest.

I hate ice cream headahces.. but dang if im ever going to stop eating ice cream. for the greatets example of all time.

[navar100]

What bugs me is the incapability of people to stop bashing 3E every chance they get. If you don't like it, don't play it. There's no need to shout your anger over the game at the rest of us who actually like it very much, have fun playing, and don't have the hangups you just cannot get over.

[Phelix-Mu]

While I'm not sure I agree with everything you say here, I'm pretty certain that heavily restricting access to spells beyond core isn't your best bet. The vast majority of the most powerful spells come out of the Player's Handbook.

Grease, Obscuring Mist, Glitterdust, Alter Self, Haste/Slow, Polymorph, Evard's Black Tentacles, Solid Fog to name a few lower level gems. A lot of the most absurd spells also come from core; Shapechange, Gate, Wish, Planar Binding line, Maze, Control Winds among others.

While there are certainly some spells from splats that are absurd, their numbers are comparable from all of the splats combined versus those simply from core. Things like Mindrape, Ice Assassin, Shivering Touch, even without these, a lot of the most powerful spellcaster tricks are available in core.

Mmm, I do agree with you. But a DM's job reigning in spells is massively simplified if access is restricted from the get go. The list of things that need to be fixed in core is manageable, you pointed out the big offenders; polymorph line, gate, shapechange, all need a fix that is minorly beyond the scope of this thread.

As far as I'm concerned, no spell should let you turn into any creature, even within HD limits, replicating wild shape, but much cooler/more powerful. Single spells need to be less powerful than entire class features. That this needs to be said indicates the scale of the problem.

The main problem with the ever-expanding spell list was the list of spell combinations, especially with the metamagic third variable. The resulting magical arms race between the players and the DM may unnecessarily complicate the game for some DMs, as win-button acquisition is hard to mesh with the overall power-level and tempo of the game world. At least for some DMs. As always, the DM has countermeasures for this, but we are talking about the native balance of 3e, not what can be achieved via DM initiative.

[Larkas]

Mmm, I do agree with you. But a DM's job reigning in spells is massively simplified if access is restricted from the get go. The list of things that need to be fixed in core is manageable, you pointed out the big offenders; polymorph line, gate, shapechange, all need a fix that is minorly beyond the scope of this thread.

As far as I'm concerned, no spell should let you turn into any creature, even within HD limits, replicating wild shape, but much cooler/more powerful. Single spells need to be less powerful than entire class features. That this needs to be said indicates the scale of the problem.

The main problem with the ever-expanding spell list was the list of spell combinations, especially with the metamagic third variable. The resulting magical arms race between the players and the DM may unnecessarily complicate the game for some DMs, as win-button acquisition is hard to mesh with the overall power-level and tempo of the game world. At least for some DMs. As always, the DM has countermeasures for this, but we are talking about the native balance of 3e, not what can be achieved via DM initiative.

Know what we need? A massive, comprehensive ban-list of spells somewhere, maybe with fixes to minor offenders. Something sleek people can agree with, and that could make the game better for everyone. Banning on a case by case basis is very consuming for the DM, and can make player-DM relations somewhat tense ("Every time I find a nice spell he hits me with the nerf bat!"). If a list is agreed on before play begins, this makes the ease of the DM job and the game fun that much greater.

Unfortunately, this is a titanic job that I think no one would want to undertake. The number of spells published is simply HUGE, and going through every supplement sure is tiresome. A good start would be PHB+SC, but alas that's not nearly enough.

On a side note, I really like what you said about single spells needing to be less powerful than class features. That's why I always consider banning, or at least severely limiting, spells like Knock, Freedom of Movement and Wind Wall: Knock gives +10 to Open Lock for the next attempt by the touched subject, and allows to use the skill untrained; Freedom of Movement gives +10 to Escape Artist when trying to escape a grapple; Wind Wall increases AC by 10 against missile weapons. Thing is, I don't know if I'm nerfing them too bad, as I'm the person with the best system mastery in my table, and don't have anyone to discuss the changes with. :smallfrown:

[Togo]

I think what bugs me is the complexity of combat. One of main and central reasons why fighters in particular, and mundane characters in general, are so looked down upon in these boards is that combat characters are so much harder to optimise than spellcasters. Warriors have to have a good head for numbers, think tactically, and keep track of multiple bonuses and comparisons just to do their basic job. Spellcasters mainly just have to choose from a list. Obviously tactical thinking helps, but it's not necessary for their basic participation.

The other thing that bugs me is the feats. They were pitched too low, and chains although promising specialist abilities that would be more powerful, didn't end up being that good. They chickened out of giving the same kind of powerful combat options to warriors by overestimating the extent to which x/per day powers would be a limitation. Narrowly focused abilities work quite well, and the tactical feats work well, but the developers essentially gave up on combat feats and tried to develop replacements based on particular class abilities (rogue, ranger, paladins using their turns/per day as a currency to power additional abilities), and eventually tried to copy the spellcasting mechanic with Tome of Battle. I found that approach a great disappointment, since I'd rather see feat chains developed into the something that could actually work well.

[ArcturusV]

Oh... and this seems kinda silly as well, but it always kinda bugged me.

If I play a Spellcaster, I do, right in the original books (DMG, PHB) have a blank check to just make up a spell to do whatever I want. Even if I can't find a spell to do whatever I want in the game already.

But I don't have that sort of lateral freedom with a fighter. I can't just "make up" a feat for myself to make. Least I never saw rules for anything like that. I can't be some prodigy swordsman who creates a brand new technique or style that the world hasn't seen before.

I think maybe if the system had a built in ability like that, where some feat focused characters (Like Fighters as all their features are just bonus feats) could make up feats to take, with some guidelines akin to Spell Creation... might be interesting. Might give me a wider array of effective options.

[Curmudgeon]

The linear range penalties for Spot and Listen bug me a lot. They don't make physical sense, and using them means the most eagle-eyed, highly experienced scout can fail to notice enemies in plain sight across an open field. :smallfrown:

Speaking of "in plain sight", how is it that Hide in Plain Sight isn't a Rogue class feature? It's the iconic stealthy class in the game, after all. :smallfurious:

[Dusk Eclipse]

The linear range penalties for Spot and Listen bug me a lot. They don't make physical sense, and using them means the most eagle-eyed, highly experienced scout can fail to notice enemies in plain sight across an open field. :smallfrown:

Speaking of "in plain sight", how is it that Hide in Plain Sight isn't a Rogue class feature? It's the iconic stealthy class in the game, after all. :smallfurious:

Wilderness Rogue can get it via special abilities (an earlier than the Ranger), though it is restricted to natural environment only (it says as the Ranger class feature)

[ngilop]

i just want to thank Karnith, ArcturusV, Larkas, Lord Il Palazzo and Togo for actually taking time to read the thread my opening posta nd dping more than getting panties in a bunch and being angry over somebody's opinion on what bugs them about something, and instead adding your own opinions on what bugs you about that thing. It really pust my hope for humanity back into plave after reading most other's own posts.

Id bake them all some fudge but alas im not sure you allowed to send food via mail.

[KillianHawkeye]

Meh, mundane warriors not being super-human isn't something new to 3rd Edition. The older ones were like that, too.

When WotC made 3E, they changed the basic game mechanics, but beyond that they tried to make it as much like older editions of D&D as they could to attract the existing D&D fans. Basically what I'm saying is that there was no reason for Fighters to be given super speed or flaming weapons or any of that jazz, because D&D was never about that. They tried it with 4th Edition, and I think they did a decent job, but there were enough other issues with the system that it didn't work out for everyone.




I saw a great proposal for an alternate weapon system for d&d a while back. It was called something like "weapons as effects" or the like. The basic gist was that it was the warrior, not the weapon, that was deadly. The weapon just had some different effects. Essentially, it took the weapon damage out of the equation and instead made damage a function of BAB and level. So high level fighters would be capable of dishing out 10d6 of damage, because they were highly skilled. And there was a well thought out conversion chart that let the fighter trade dice of damage out for effects, at the time of the attack. I know I saved it off somewhere, now I just need to find it.

The weapon mattered less for damage, but had other effects (a longsword did slashing damage, flails granted their normal bonus to trip, etc.).

If you have a link, I'd sure be interested in reading that.

[Deadline]

If you have a link, I'd sure be interested in reading that.

I found it on ENworld about 7-8 years ago. I'll have to dig through my files to see if I still have it. It was beautiful, elegant, and easy to implement.

*Apologies to the OP for the OT post.

[ngilop]

none needed you are actually still on topic as this deals with your own complaint about what bugs you with 3rd ed

I once upon a tme thought about adding a weapons base damage for every iterative attack a character gets, but never implemented it and actuall never thought of it again till now, so thank for jogging my old memory.

so from 1-5 a long sword welded by a fighter does 1-8
at 6-10 it does 2-16
at 11-15 it does 3-24
and finally at 16-20 it does 4-32 dmg.

does that make weapon damage seem better?

[Curmudgeon]

Wilderness Rogue can get it via special abilities (an earlier than the Ranger), though it is restricted to natural environment only (it says as the Ranger class feature)
No earlier than level 13, though. The Shadowdancer ability is greatly superior, and can be had with a 1-level dip at class level 8. But that approach totally focuses the Rogue's development path due to the high entry costs, so most such Rogues are largely interchangeable. The game's iconic stealthy class should be better at hiding than spellcasters are, so a Rogue ought to be very hard to find by level 3 — the level at which a Wizard can cast Invisibility and grant a whopping +40 bonus on Hide checks.

Hide in Plain Sight, only as an ACF, limited to natural terrain only, and 10 levels later than for a spellcaster: that's infuriatingly insulting.

[Phelix-Mu]

The linear range penalties for Spot and Listen bug me a lot. They don't make physical sense, and using them means the most eagle-eyed, highly experienced scout can fail to notice enemies in plain sight across an open field. :smallfrown:

Speaking of "in plain sight", how is it that Hide in Plain Sight isn't a Rogue class feature? It's the iconic stealthy class in the game, after all. :smallfurious:

Right, so these are things that were so badly handled in the original rules. I mean, elves in Tolkien were supposed to have really great senses. And what does +2 bonus in the Spot/Listen mean? Virtually nothing as far as overall range goes.

It's not even vaguely realistic, either, and any DM is much better off just ruling that things that aren't actively attempting to hide are visible at a common sense distance (like over 1/2 mile for that huge orc army, assuming decent light and clear weather). Or that dragon as big as a plane is visible from miles away. The way the penalties scale, you even run into lots of problems with using ranged attacks/spells at a range that exceeds what is actually visible, not usually a problem except with the most powerful of bows (mostly an issue of an arrow not being a particularly visible object).

I will ditto the Hide thing. The problem with HiPS is that the Hide skill itself is bizarre and complicated, especially as it often is intimately tied to Spot, which is also bizarre and not making any sense. If HiPS and the related skills worked, it should definitely have been a rogue perk; there is no sensible reason why one should have to PrC to get level-appropriate use out of Hide, especially with how Spot modifiers scale (which is to say, pretty well, if we ignore the distance thing). This is along the lines of the Major Skill Tricks that I was talking about before, special uses of skills that should be available to each mundane class, stuff that can't be simply copied with spells.

Another thing that bothered me about 3e was how arbitrary some of the changes between 3.0 and 3.5 were. Monk was changed. But not for the better, and it's pretty hard to not see how some aspects of the change were a downgrade (several cool abilities in 3.0 simply went away or became feats). Some bonus feats were added, I think, but with terrible/build-inhibited choices.

Overall, I will echo the sentiment that 3e is very nice. But it's far from perfect, and many DMs can benefit from a little judicious common sense injected into the rules.

[Deadline]

If you have a link, I'd sure be interested in reading that.

Aha! I knew it was still floating around. It was a thread from ENworld, back in 2004. The thread (Weapons as Special Effects) is long, and there is a semi-finalized pdf link in one of the posts near the end of the thread.

Here's the link:

http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?103168-Weapons-as-special-effects

Edit: I've got the pdf, if anyone wants me to send it on to you. Can we send attachments via PM?

[Tovec]

A. SPELL CHECK


But to me high level fighters should be the D&D equivalents of Heracles, Gilgamesh, Beowulf, Roland and Indrajit.
B. And you lost me.

C. Tome of Battle. (I don't like it but for many I hear it does wonders.)

[TuggyNE]

the intent of this thread was simple to say what bugs you about 3rd ed.
[…]
ArcturusV hit the nail on the head in regards to what my intent on this thread is about, if i wnated to 'fix it' id just post homebrew stuff on the homebrew forum ( which I have).

While I can understand this, I have a bit of a problem with your specific approach; saying, "no, we totally can't talk about anything that might fix or improve the stuff we're griping about" seems a bit less than fully productive. I mean, OK, it's good to figure out the sore spots, and sometimes you mostly just need to vent, but is it really so bad to try moving forward to solve some of those problems, too?

[White_Drake]

Last post on page nine for those of you interested in the pdf (http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?103168-Weapons-as-special-effects/page9).

Thanks Deadline.

[ZamielVanWeber]

It annoys me that spellcasters not only scale their "to hit" (spell resistance penetration), but they also scale their damage AND their lack of regular BAB is made up for by lots of touch attacks. Worse off, a lot of books gave them more spells, and feats, and items, even the monster manuals have them summoning options. Melee classes... Got a fraction of that.

[Phelix-Mu]

While I can understand this, I have a bit of a problem with your specific approach; saying, "no, we totally can't talk about anything that might fix or improve the stuff we're griping about" seems a bit less than fully productive. I mean, OK, it's good to figure out the sore spots, and sometimes you mostly just need to vent, but is it really so bad to try moving forward to solve some of those problems, too?

I totally think that a brief mention of fixes is pretty much implied by the discussion of what is wrong.

The Spot skill is pretty much a good example. It bugs me, and the part that bugs me most is the distance modifiers. They are stupid. The fix is pretty obvious: apply some realistic modifier, and account for the fact that, flavor-wise, some races are supposed to have noticeably better senses than others (+2 hardly accounts for this when we look at the distance modifiers), the kind of difference that gets noticed in-game by characters that have no idea how the mechanic works.

Even mechanically, elves roll, what, is it true to say they are, on average, rolling 10% better than humans on Spot/Listen? Is that noticeable? Even a 10% improvement in spotting distance is not impressive, an extra 10' for every 100' of distance...barely noticeable. At a 1000', that's an extra 18 seconds of seeing someone that is walking towards you (assuming 30' move), hardly a tactical advantage, since it takes the same approaching target just over three more minutes to reach you...

Double the existing benefit and it might be more impressive. They pegged a bunch of starter-level abilities at +2 bonuses and called it a night.

Another thing that bugs me is the fixed DCs for some skills. In light of op tricks, some of the things should be markedly harder, or even npc classes with mundane support and a little skill ranks and such can pretty much guarantee success, even at low level. Not saying that everything should be harder, just some of it seems quite trivial at even low levels.

[navar100]

I love this guys reading comprehension on the entirety of the thread.

why is it that poeple like him beleif that if you like the slightest most isignificant part of something then surely you must abhor the whole thing.

maybe if Navar100 actually read more of the thread than just the title of the Op he would see somethings that he himself would agree with, the disparity of power and versatility bwteen anything with magic and anything without magic, how feats are completely un equal.

but I guess in the end this is teh really only thing that actually upsets me about 3rd ed, all the 3rd ed diehard fans that actually think that becuase you dislike 1 thing about it you are or

I am going to make the same wager to Navar100, 1 years pay that there is somethnig somwhere in 3rd ed that you dislike as well.

Again just becuase out fo the millions upon millions of different little items that make up 3rd ed I dislike one does not mean that I hate everything about 3rd ed and hate everybody who plays it.

really what bugs me the most is that people lke to get angry over things and just spout whatever nonsesne they want to to defend their position not out of any logic but out of a purely emotional stance, get over yourselves and realize that not everything is perfect

i just want to thank Karnith, ArcturusV, Larkas, Lord Il Palazzo and Togo for actually taking time to read the thread my opening posta nd dping more than getting panties in a bunch and being angry over somebody's opinion on what bugs them about something, and instead adding your own opinions on what bugs you about that thing. It really pust my hope for humanity back into plave after reading most other's own posts.

Perhaps with slight exaggeration but every week I see a new thread pop up complaining about 3E. I see it all the time about how monks suck, druids pwn, and wizards rule while fighters drool. Tier 1 is too powerful. Tier 4 is too weak. Tier 3 is nirvana. Fighters always fail their saving throws. Wizards always have the exact spell they need when they need it, and the opponent always fails the save. It was literally a month or two months ago a thread just like this came up, and I made this exact same comment.

I don't like 4E. I hate it with a passion. However, unlike those who don't like 3E, I feel no compulsion to go onto the 4E boards to complain about it. I can get on with life not having to nitpick every detail of the system ad nauseum.

[ArcturusV]

I am in no way adverse to anyone looking at anything I mentioned and putting up little fixes or something. Nor am I really "bashing" 3rd. If anything it's just a wistful wishing. I still play more third edition than anything else. Still like it. Heck, rolling up a third edition character as I type this for a PbP campaign.

[Phelix-Mu]

Perhaps with slight exaggeration but every week I see a new thread pop up complaining about 3E. I see it all the time about how monks suck, druids pwn, and wizards rule while fighters drool. Tier 1 is too powerful. Tier 4 is too weak. Tier 3 is nirvana. Fighters always fail their saving throws. Wizards always have the exact spell they need when they need it, and the opponent always fails the save. It was literally a month or two months ago a thread just like this came up, and I made this exact same comment.

I don't like 4E. I hate it with a passion. However, unlike those who don't like 3E, I feel no compulsion to go onto the 4E boards to complain about it. I can get on with life not having to nitpick every detail of the system ad nauseum.

Well, if complaining is silly, then complaining about complaining is only moderately less silly.

I think you will have trouble convincing people on the internet to not voice their opinions, and complaining is really just a form of communication. You may not like it, but it's hardly the most objectionable thing out there.

Likewise, frequency of complaining. Frequency of anything on the internet is not a reason to avoid that thing, as the entire experience of instantaneous communication across mass media is one of realizing that there are lots of people out there with generally similar thoughts and feelings, along with lots of people with totally different thoughts and feelings. Suggesting that people stop talking just because they aren't voicing original ideas would quickly put an end to all communication, because, generally speaking, there are no original ideas.

Now, back to the OP, I dislike the way they weight full BAB in 3e. At first they were eyeballing it, I guess, but they gradually went about mucking it up quite thoroughly. Same thing with all good saves, the major reason why just about nothing has all good saves, and if it does, it generally pays dearly for the privilege. Granted, PrC with all good saves are much better than base classes, due to cherry-picking, but not by a whole lot.

Risk in combat was also misrepresented. This is a pretty complex topic, though, and broadly can include a whole slew of erroneous assumptions that form the foundation of the ruleset.

[Venger]

as far as spot penalties go, it's not uncommon for groups to simply ignore them entirely. you'll find that mechanics are vastly improved because really, the only time anyone actually rolls spot checks is when enemies are actually on the battlemap

one rule that I don't like:

flying mechanics. that is a degree of math and accountability that's pretty much missing entirely from the rest of the battlemap stuff. angles, minimum speed, turning radius, that's especially ridiculous since the game requires that everyone fly ASAP.

[Curmudgeon]

as far as spot penalties go, it's not uncommon for groups to simply ignore them entirely.
I don't use a lot of house rules, but this linear scaling penalty for a real-world logarithmic increase in difficulty was spoiling my games, so I came up with this:

Range penalties for Spot (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/spot.htm) and Listen (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/listen.htm) are reduced:

From 101'-300', range penalties add -1 per additional 20'.
From 301'-600', range penalties add -1 per additional 30'.
From 601'-1000', range penalties add -1 per additional 40'.
Beyond 1000', range penalties add -1 per additional 50'.


{TABLE="head"] Distance | Penalty | | Distance | Penalty | | Distance | Penalty | | Distance | Penalty
10' | -1 | | 160' | -13 | | 450' | -25 | | 880' | -37
20' | -2 | | 180' | -14 | | 480' | -26 | | 920' | -38
30' | -3 | | 200' | -15 | | 510' | -27 | | 960' | -49
40' | -4 | | 220' | -16 | | 540' | -28 | | 1000' | -40
50' | -5 | | 240' | -17 | | 570' | -29 | | 1050' | -41
60' | -6 | | 260' | -18 | | 600' | -30 | | 1100' | -42
70' | -7 | | 280' | -19 | | 640' | -31 | | 1150' | -43
80' | -8 | | 300' | -20 | | 680' | -32 | | 1200' | -44
90' | -9 | | 330' | -21 | | 720' | -33 | | 1250' | -45
100' | -10 | | 360' | -22 | | 760' | -34 | | 1300' | -46
120' | -11 | | 390' | -23 | | 800' | -35 | | 1350' | -47
140' | -12 | | 420' | -24 | | 840' | -36 | | 1400' | -48[/TABLE]

This addresses the issue of characters being incapable of perceiving enemies at D&D encounter distances (up to 1440'). -48 is tough to make with up to 23 ranks in Spot or Listen; the -144 of the standard rules is impossible.

[Phelix-Mu]

I don't use a lot of house rules, but this linear scaling penalty for a real-world logarithmic increase in difficulty was spoiling my games, so I came up with this:

Range penalties for Spot (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/spot.htm) and Listen (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/listen.htm) are reduced:

From 101'-300', range penalties add -1 per additional 20'.
From 301'-600', range penalties add -1 per additional 30'.
From 601'-1000', range penalties add -1 per additional 40'.
Beyond 1000', range penalties add -1 per additional 50'.


{TABLE="head"] Distance | Penalty | | Distance | Penalty | | Distance | Penalty | | Distance | Penalty
10' | -1 | | 160' | -13 | | 450' | -25 | | 880' | -37
20' | -2 | | 180' | -14 | | 480' | -26 | | 920' | -38
30' | -3 | | 200' | -15 | | 510' | -27 | | 960' | -49
40' | -4 | | 220' | -16 | | 540' | -28 | | 1000' | -40
50' | -5 | | 240' | -17 | | 570' | -29 | | 1050' | -41
60' | -6 | | 260' | -18 | | 600' | -30 | | 1100' | -42
70' | -7 | | 280' | -19 | | 640' | -31 | | 1150' | -43
80' | -8 | | 300' | -20 | | 680' | -32 | | 1200' | -44
90' | -9 | | 330' | -21 | | 720' | -33 | | 1250' | -45
100' | -10 | | 360' | -22 | | 760' | -34 | | 1300' | -46
120' | -11 | | 390' | -23 | | 800' | -35 | | 1350' | -47
140' | -12 | | 420' | -24 | | 840' | -36 | | 1400' | -48[/TABLE]

This addresses the issue of characters being incapable of perceiving enemies at D&D encounter distances (up to 1440'). -48 is tough to make with up to 23 ranks in Spot or Listen; the -144 of the standard rules is impossible.

A vast improvement, but I'm not sure I like the near end of the scale. But if we are going for realism over game impact, I think this a practical, not too complicated fix.

Such a mundane tweak is also nice because it can take some of the pressure off of magical spot bonuses, which are pretty much a requirement fairly early on in the game.

[Venger]

Banning on a case by case basis is very consuming for the DM, and can make player-DM relations somewhat tense ("Every time I find a nice spell he hits me with the nerf bat!"). If a list is agreed on before play begins, this makes the ease of the DM job and the game fun that much greater.

This is a bad situation to be in, and the blame rests solely on the DM in these instances. Part of the responsibility you agree to assume if you run a game and allow casters in it is to be familiar with their capabilities. If you don't know the spells someone can cast well enough to know what is overpowered or not, then you should ask your players before character creation not to play those classes. doing anything else is a flagrant act of disrespect to the player and the time they spent building their character.

If you are going to make a ban list of a few spells (shivering touch, moon bolt, celerity, etc) then you should absolutely disseminate it before players get any of those spells. you can even learn along with them. players just hit level 11? great! now you go ahead and start learning about 7th level wizard spells and decide if you're skilled enough at running monsters to allow stun ray in your game or if you want to smash it with your mighty banhammer. this way you've got plenty of time before the players go to town to buy spells, and when they do so, you can say:

"Hey, guys. before you roll to determine what spells are available in this town, here is a list of spells that I think would make the game less fun if you were able to cast them. don't try to get them in the game, because I'm going to houserule that they don't exist"

it should go without saying that if you ban a spell, that your NPCs should not be allowed to use it against players. unfortunately, not all DMs can make this intuitive leap.

My DM does, as you mention "ban as you go" which is the norm for most groups, and while I don't like it very much, I can understand where he's coming from. DMing is very time consuming, and he's less familiar with spells.

the effect this has is that I end up saving the spells I know are questionable for boss fights, upon which they are summarily banned forthwith. so I guess to a degree it achieves its goal, but it's far from the ideal DM/player relationship in general.


Knock gives +10 to Open Lock for the next attempt by the touched subject, and allows to use the skill untrained; Freedom of Movement gives +10 to Escape Artist when trying to escape a grapple; Wind Wall increases AC by 10 against missile weapons. Thing is, I don't know if I'm nerfing them too bad, as I'm the person with the best system mastery in my table, and don't have anyone to discuss the changes with. :smallfrown:

Since you did ask, +10 to a skill as a second level spell is okay, but remember guidance of the avatar, which casters can use for a +20 to any skill for the same 2nd level slot. In general, if you're of the school that casters should not be able to invalidate skillful classes like rogues, then you should simply banhammer all skill spells.

+10 to escape artist checks for a 4th level slot is abysmal compared to other 4th level effects (enervation, death ward, polymorph, divine power, foebane,etc). no one would be willing to cast that instead of a different spell.

+10 to AC (what bonus type is it? if it's untyped, that's too powerful for a 2nd level slot) is, depending on armor type can be merely very powerful (natural armor, such as the also 2nd lvl barkskin (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/barkskin.htm) which you will notice gives a much smaller bonus for the same spell lvl, down to being downright ridiculous (if it's deflection or godforbid dodge)

well, that's what the message board is for. this sounds like a great topic for a new thread where I and others would be happy to help you out with balancing:

a good thing to keep in mind when you're trying to nerfbat spells is to compare them to similar effects that are the same level. is this noticeably stronger/weaker than this spell that does the same thing? if so, you probably need to adjust the numbers

[AuraTwilight]

I love this guys reading comprehension on the entirety of the thread.

why is it that poeple like him beleif that if you like the slightest most isignificant part of something then surely you must abhor the whole thing.

maybe if Navar100 actually read more of the thread than just the title of the Op he would see somethings that he himself would agree with, the disparity of power and versatility bwteen anything with magic and anything without magic, how feats are completely un equal.

but I guess in the end this is teh really only thing that actually upsets me about 3rd ed, all the 3rd ed diehard fans that actually think that becuase you dislike 1 thing about it you are or

I am going to make the same wager to Navar100, 1 years pay that there is somethnig somwhere in 3rd ed that you dislike as well.

Again just becuase out fo the millions upon millions of different little items that make up 3rd ed I dislike one does not mean that I hate everything about 3rd ed and hate everybody who plays it.

really what bugs me the most is that people lke to get angry over things and just spout whatever nonsesne they want to to defend their position not out of any logic but out of a purely emotional stance, get over yourselves and realize that not everything is perfect

i just want to thank Karnith, ArcturusV, Larkas, Lord Il Palazzo and Togo for actually taking time to read the thread my opening posta nd dping more than getting panties in a bunch and being angry over somebody's opinion on what bugs them about something, and instead adding your own opinions on what bugs you about that thing. It really pust my hope for humanity back into plave after reading most other's own posts.

Hey, can we not be insulting, derogatory jackasses at other forum members just because they disagree with you? I get you want people to stay on-topic in your thread, but you're making things even MORE off-topic by making your arguments personal. Don't be insulting people's intelligence, reading comprehension, tendencies to anger or bickering, or lack of humility. With the way you've been conducting yourself in this thread, you're not much one to talk considering that you vent angrily when people so much as utter "Tome of Battle."

Secondly, there's several threads just like this that both do everything you asked for, AND don't have off-topic arguing due to an OP trying to shut down all venues of discussion he's not personally interested in; do you just want a personal list and connection? Because there's consolidated lists all over this place already. By angrily shooting down anyone bringing up topics you don't like, you're keeping the conversation from evolving meaningfully and putting a shorter lifespan on the thread as a whole, ensuring that it'll be buried under the archive binge.

Thirdly, oh my goodness, brush up on your manners. You're incredibly abrasive and antagonistic, and it makes me not want to participate in this thread even though I could probably go on and on about third edition criticisms.

[Telonius]

Know what we need? A massive, comprehensive ban-list of spells somewhere, maybe with fixes to minor offenders. Something sleek people can agree with, and that could make the game better for everyone. Banning on a case by case basis is very consuming for the DM, and can make player-DM relations somewhat tense ("Every time I find a nice spell he hits me with the nerf bat!"). If a list is agreed on before play begins, this makes the ease of the DM job and the game fun that much greater.

Unfortunately, this is a titanic job that I think no one would want to undertake. The number of spells published is simply HUGE, and going through every supplement sure is tiresome. A good start would be PHB+SC, but alas that's not nearly enough.

On a side note, I really like what you said about single spells needing to be less powerful than class features. That's why I always consider banning, or at least severely limiting, spells like Knock, Freedom of Movement and Wind Wall: Knock gives +10 to Open Lock for the next attempt by the touched subject, and allows to use the skill untrained; Freedom of Movement gives +10 to Escape Artist when trying to escape a grapple; Wind Wall increases AC by 10 against missile weapons. Thing is, I don't know if I'm nerfing them too bad, as I'm the person with the best system mastery in my table, and don't have anyone to discuss the changes with. :smallfrown:

The Test of Spite ban list (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6885281&postcount=2) might be a good place to start.

[Phelix-Mu]

Might be more practical just to ignore it. Attempts to alter behavior via internet forums have an almost hysterically low chance of succeeding.

Onward?

I also agree on the pre-banning issue. A player should know ahead of time about houserules. That said, there is a veritable mountain of material in 3.5, some of which can be very hard to access ahead of time without ample internet savvy. Thus, on-the-spot rulings.

If you want to see what I ban on the spot, I think anything that = infinite spell combo or infinite damage and the like will get an on the spot rules revision. I find that arcane fusion and kindred spells combine only poorly with Rapid Metamagic, and so recursive spell chains of orb of force quickly become arbitrarily strong. Let us not speak of body out of body. While legitimate use of these spells exists, the potential for abuse is so high that rewrite or outright ban is hard to avoid in my game.

I am still undecided about celerity. It has legit use, but man, talk about wizards not needing access to more action economy. Immediate actions should be extremely, extremely few in number, as the game is kind of fundamentally turn-based. Feather fall is pretty legit, and I can probably let Immediate Magic ACF slide, and ToB counters are relatively tame. Letting wizards cast w/e spell out of their turn is, well, unnecessarily powerful. The fact that daze immunity is an actual thing really just reinforces my feeling. Big bang, small buck, and the wizard is so crazy rich that the price of this power just rolls off his/her/its back.

[The Viscount]

Four things that bug me the most in 3.0 and 3.5.

1. DR in 3.0. Sweet merciful cupcakes the DR in 3.0 was crazy. It was most frequently overcome by a bonus on weapon type, and the need to up the damage for the bonus seems unnecessary. Worst I've seen this sort of thing get is the Varakhut from Fiend Folio which had DR 50/+5 and fast healing 20. All this DR system meant was that classes that dealt damage with weapons had to use their money to buy the greatest bonus possible if they wanted to contribute damage-wise. Very glad they fixed it in 3.5, both with DR/magic and by bringing down the numbers. DR 20 is the highest I've seen in 3.5; I don't know if there is any higher.

2. When a PrC requires ranks in a skill and then does not have that skill as a class skill. There are similar principles with high BA requirements on an average BA class, but skill really gets me.

3. Classes that were written without overview or editing. I understand spells are sometimes missing some important clause *cough*streamers*cough* but classes represent a rather major investment of labor and a rather major contribution. This should come with some examination of the class, no? While Truenamer is the poster child for this sort of behavior, problems exist on a smaller scale with the Dread Necromancer, a class which, like most of Heroes of Horror, is confoundingly written without using correct or any game terminology at times. It frustrates me because I like Dread Necromancer. I feel bad for whoever gave up halfway through reading the advancement section (the first paragraph of which is all about backstory instead of advancement. See what I mean?) and didn't see the second, significantly smaller paragraph which tells you they can cast corrupt spells.

4. Corrupt Spells are a mess of rules that were very clearly thrown together with not enough editing. The rough patch in the FAQ works in a way by saying it trumps immunity to ability damage, but then the exception saying that undead take everything as Cha makes little sense, as it means that undead casting corrupt spells will knock themselves out of combat faster than normal casters because the damage is all to one stat. Hilariously there is no such statement for constructs, so they can cast spells that would damage their con all the livelong day.

[hamishspence]

At high levels a fighter should be capabel of sundering mountains, fighting a diety for three days before dieing, or managing to take on an invincible monster.

All thing that we in the real world know is impossbile with our real world science and what ever elses. But in the D&D world, things opperate a little differently.
...
In D&D I think the a person born, raised and based upon the rules of the rest of D&D should be BASED upon those rules, not the rules from our real world. and Really to me that is the core problem of what is wrong with Fighters and Rgoues and to a lesser degree rangers, paladins, and monks.

There's a site (thealexandrian) that takes the opposite tack- it argues that D&D "mundane" people start exceeding real-world limitations at above 6th level.

Really high level fighters can survive a short swim in lava, or break real-world lifting and carrying records, or jump further than anyone's jumped before, and so on.

When applied to D20 Modern weapon rules, they really do seem like superheroes- a main battle tank's gun does 10d12 damage, 20d12 on a critical hit- a 20th level fighter or barbarian might simply shrug it off.

[Squirrel_Dude]

The overall meaninglessness of skill check DCs. If it's against a straight DC a player can almost always just take a 10, or a 20, or retry a bunch to get it. If it's an opposed check then there is a spell that does it better than you, no matter how many ranks you have.


By level 7, having players make skill checks more often feels like a waste of time then anything actually meaningful or random.


There's a site (thealexandrian) that takes the opposite tack- it argues that D&D "mundane" people start exceeding real-world limitations at above 6th level.

Really high level fighters can survive a short swim in lava, or break real-world lifting and carrying records, or jump further than anyone's jumped before, and so on.

When applied to D20 Modern weapon rules, they really do seem like superheroes- a main battle tank's gun does 10d12 damage, 20d12 on a critical hit- a 20th level fighter or barbarian might simply shrug it off.To help put some of the strength absurdity in perspective:

Olympic weight lifting records: 580 pounds
18 strength (level 1 human): Max lift over head weight: 600 pounds.
22 strength (level 1 orc): Max carrying capacity 520 pounds.

So... yeah...

[Alienist]

I think that some of the things published for D&D Next (can't we just call it 5.0?) use similar mechanics.

On topic, uh....what's the point of this thread, exactly? Literally every complaint about 3.5 can be worked around because of its pretty massive flexibility.

I feel like there's a joke in there about the designers having their heads up their asses sometimes, but I just can't find it...

Making the fighter do more damage doesn't fix the problem when the problem is that all the fighter does is damage. See also, Monk.

[ArcturusV]

Yeah. Options don't necessarily work. Some things got a lot of options. I can't think of a spellcaster archetype I may want to ever play I can't replicate in some fashion. Even the more standard pulp fantasy "Wizards" who are more ritualistic and take hours to cast things, but have high power effects. Still can do stuff like that. Apocalypse from the Sky, Blizzards, Raising Undead, etc.

But interestingly enough I can't play a swordsman savant who creates a wholly new combat style which lives on beyond his life. I have to homebrew something like the Elemental Paladin concept I wanted (Yes, I know there's a "True Neutral" paladin but it doesn't do what I wanted conceptually).

It's kinda like saying if I have an issue with... anything, I can just use the ultimate rule of the DM is Always Right to make it otherwise. Like that usually gets brought up in Fluff discussions, someone says "Well you can just ignore it or rewrite it".

... though everything you "Fix" like that is just one thing that makes it harder to find a player for your game. You have to keep explaining what is new and different. They have less of a common understanding of the game when they first set down. There's already enough variables out there saying that you're going to rewrite or ignore something that's normal in game just makes things harder than it has to be.

I dunno. I mean I like it. It's comfortable and familiar. Minor things irk me sometimes. But never enough to actually make me give it up. Hell talking about Options there are still a lot of things I have wanted to play in game that I have never had the chance to run. Darfellan Ranger/Leviathan Hunter, for example. Still so much to do.

... course that's also kind of a problem. There is so damned much. It'll take years to go through. Makes creation a much bigger puzzle. Not that I see it as a downside. But it gets... daunting. Yes, daunting sometimes.

[hamishspence]

To help put some of the strength absurdity in perspective:

Olympic weight lifting records: 580 pounds
18 strength (level 1 human): Max lift over head weight: 600 pounds.
22 strength (level 1 orc): Max carrying capacity 520 pounds.

So... yeah...

Actually you need to be Str 23 to lift 600 pounds (your maximum load) over your head. But your maximum "lift over head" load, is also your maximum carrying capacity- you can lift twice that off the ground (1200 pounds).
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/carryingCapacity.htm#liftingandDragging

You can do this at 4 Hit Dice, with the right combination- Str 18, 1 level in a class, 3 levels of Paragon Human (choosing +2 to Str) +1 to one stat (Str) for being 4th level, and the Prodigy (of Str) mini-template from DMG2 for an extra +2.

If that 1st class level is in Barbarian, you can lift a lot more, when in a rage.

[Squirrel_Dude]

Actually you need to be Str 23 to lift 600 pounds (your maximum load) over your head. But your maximum "lift over head" load, is also your maximum carrying capacity- you can lift twice that off the ground (1200 pounds).
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/carryingCapacity.htm#liftingandDragging

You can do this at 4 Hit Dice, with the right combination- Str 18, 1 level in a class, 3 levels of Paragon Human (choosing +2 to Str) +1 to one stat (Str) for being 4th level, and the Prodigy (of Str) mini-template from DMG2 for an extra +2.

If that 1st class level is in Barbarian, you can lift a lot more, when in a rage.Ah, you are correct.

[hamishspence]

Interestingly, 4E cuts the "max lift as a heavy load" limit considerably.

What one can walk around with, at Str 18, in 4E, corresponds to what Str 15 could walk around with in 3.5.

That might be because Str 20 is the maximum you can start out with.

[Garagos]

Hey, can we not be insulting, derogatory jackasses at other forum members just because they disagree with you? I get you want people to stay on-topic in your thread, but you're making things even MORE off-topic by making your arguments personal. Don't be insulting people's intelligence, reading comprehension, tendencies to anger or bickering, or lack of humility. With the way you've been conducting yourself in this thread, you're not much one to talk considering that you vent angrily when people so much as utter "Tome of Battle."

Secondly, there's several threads just like this that both do everything you asked for, AND don't have off-topic arguing due to an OP trying to shut down all venues of discussion he's not personally interested in; do you just want a personal list and connection? Because there's consolidated lists all over this place already. By angrily shooting down anyone bringing up topics you don't like, you're keeping the conversation from evolving meaningfully and putting a shorter lifespan on the thread as a whole, ensuring that it'll be buried under the archive binge.

Thirdly, oh my goodness, brush up on your manners. You're incredibly abrasive and antagonistic, and it makes me not want to participate in this thread even though I could probably go on and on about third edition criticisms.

Well said!

[ngilop]

There's a site (thealexandrian) that takes the opposite tack- it argues that D&D "mundane" people start exceeding real-world limitations at above 6th level.

Really high level fighters can survive a short swim in lava, or break real-world lifting and carrying records, or jump further than anyone's jumped before, and so on.

When applied to D20 Modern weapon rules, they really do seem like superheroes- a main battle tank's gun does 10d12 damage, 20d12 on a critical hit- a 20th level fighter or barbarian might simply shrug it off.

im not really at opposite to what the site is saying. that is actually what i believe as well.

I just take it a litle futher and say 'yeah what heracles did a high level fighter can do'

[Ernir]

*Draws out soapbox*

I'm going to talk. Hopefully in a structured, legible manner. The features of D&D 3.5 that bother me the most (or at least enough to come to mind right now):

Balance
This one has been talked about to hell, but better get it out of the way. The perfectly balanced RPG is probably a fairy tale, but we know this could have been done better.

Modifier Accounting

I’ve seen someone give up on D&D as a game because calculating the attack rolls, damage rolls and AC of a 12th-level Barbarian while raging, power attacking, leap attacking and shock troopering just wasn’t their idea of a fun evening. Weird, huh?
Of course, it isn’t weird. D&D-math is still math, and people tend to not like math. But 3.5 routinely forces you to add together literally a dozen numbers a time, multiple times per session.
It’s not interesting for most of us, or even necessary. It’s just something that emerges from the omnipresence of modifiers - worst of all, situational modifiers. And there’s no escaping it if you want to stay relevant in the (highly necessary) numbers game.
But more than just bookkeeping, the result is...

Vancian Everything
Vancian magic is a pretty cool spellcasting system, if you know where it came from and are on track with spells being pre-assembled clumps of energy that reside in the mind of the caster until expended.
My beef is that 3.5 takes this concept and applies some form of it to everything its creators could stick it to, including things where it doesn’t make a lot of sense - such as spontaneous casters and even martial maneuvers. Sure, we can justify it. Sorcerers have the miraculous, blood-born gift of shaping spells on the fly, and Warblades are just flowing from one form to another and can’t use their maneuvers often in a row just due to their stance being off, and so on.
But this is stuff we have to make up! The Vancian resource management system (prepared, discrete, discharged abilities) is used in a lot of places, even after 3.5 started churning out new subsystems, and even when the system requires a mental leap to integrate.

So. I don’t mind there being characters/classes that utilize a Vancian form of magic, it’s cool and iconic. I do mind abilities that have nothing to do with Vancian magic using that form of resource management - it's counter-intuitive and inappropriate.

Lack of Numerical Boundaries
Without crap like infinite loops, skill checks can reach the low hundreds, attack rolls and AC can reach ~100, saving throws something like it too. Oooor these numbers can be in the low dozens by high level. Either case may work, in the right game. But there are no breakdowns for what the system actually expects from a character of a given level, leaving us with modifiers that are... all over the place. I’ve entered a game starting at high level, where independent character generation resulted in the melee characters having attack roll modifier differences of more than 20. Meaning that their attack rolls themselves were actually meaningless. It’s all over the place, and nothing but gentleman’s agreements and the tendency of established groups to play at the same optimization level keeping things running.

Initiative and Actions

3.5’s method of breaking tasks down into actions that are performed within fully cyclical turns leads to odd situations, like it being artificially difficult to do something simple like intercepting a character as they charge past you to hit someone standing in the back lines. To compensate, we have stuff like readied actions, immediate actions, and attacks of opportunity. It kiiind of works for the most part, but we still have things like people very safely 5’ stepping out of melee to cause mischief, and some classes simply not being capable of participating in the full scale of the action economy (mundane core classes, I’m looking at you). At any rate, I definitely feel this is a fundamental aspect of the system that could have been better done differently.

Skills

Skills are... weird. They are rolled on a flat probability curve, are incredibly modifier-heavy, usually have static DCs (impossible at low levels, reliably irrelevant once resources can be devoted to it). What is a feat, what is a skill, and what is a thing anyone can do is rather arbitrarily determined.

The skills themselves are often implemented oddly. So, my character can jump 1d20+str feet when they get a running start? Uhh, real-life me can consistently jump about 10’, and that’s it. I don’t get lucky jumps. Noticing a large object in plain sight requires a Spot check, and distance penalties apply. So I can’t see the moon. Okay. But how the hell does this Hide/Spot/Listen/Move Silently rule blob work, anyway? And what’s that, there are different rules for hiding while attacking and hiding while sniping? The list goes on.

Balance is a huge factor here. Diplomancers are a thing, Use Ropers somehow aren't.

And this is a pervasive problem - like it or not, every 3.5 character is using this skill system.

The Nature of the Christmas Tree

So, D&D characters bling out with a bunch of magic items. I expect that in a game focused on killing monsters and taking their stuff.
My first problem with it is that many of these items are not actually items you enjoy having, they are just items you have to have around to stay relevant in the numbers game (see Modifier Accounting above). I'd like to see a magic item system where using interesting magic items doesn't mean you must sacrifice your numerical potential. I know that finding a Longsword +1 is about the holiest of the holy D&D cows, but I really feel like having a burger when I think about the game design involved.

My second problem is that gold and the WBL guidelines indicating how much more gold a higher level character should have than a lower level character, are just about the only limits characters have on the kind of power they can access through items (and items have lots of powers). How is it, assuming that having high-level class features would be inappropriate on mid-level characters, that I can buy items replicating high level class features? If I play nicely I spend my 5th-level characters' gold on buying a Wisdom +2 item rather than a scroll of, say, Elemental Swarm (a weak 9th level spell that would clear out most 5th-level dungeons with no contest), but why on earth do I have the option?













I love 3.5. But I've been in a relationship with it long enough to have an opinion on its character flaws.

[Farm_Ecology]

I love 3.5. And amazingly, many of the things people complain about, are exactly why I love it.

The fact that dice rolls become less important at higher levels, shows a general trend to skill rather than random occurrence.

The skill system allows so much room for improvisation.

The system itself is so fluid. The classes themselves are more skill sets, with the character evolving from the combination of skill sets from the class/classes, rather than it being a set career path. The whole system is so organic, and with the numerous prestige classes which deal with everything from pure combat to pure flavor mean the rules can do exactly what you want in a game.

One of my biggest problems with 4th edition is that all of the classes feel the same, just with different names for their spells. 2nd edition feels too restricted by your class choice.

That said, there are some minor problems I find.

There is a reliance on honesty of the players and DMs.

The Players and the DM's have to be honest and fair with each other, with roleplaying being the main goal, otherwise the game goes completely out of balance. The DM needs to trust that the players won't just take a bunch of templates for the bonuses, with the justification being "my character is really powerful, thats his story". Likewise, the player's need to trust the DM will allow the players to use their abilities/skills they have in a way that's fair.

The rules need to be implemented properly

Some of the skills/abilities feel like a waste if the DM doesn't implement them. Those points you put into survival are irrelevant if it just so happens the plot provides safe resting points and clear roads all the way through.

The versatility of it means the min/maxing can make or break a story if the players/DMs are not careful.

In conclusion


So overall I don't think there is much inherently wrong in the system, it just needs to be used correctly. It's like linux.

The players/DM need to be dedicated, fair and honest to get the full fun out of the game. Or to be all carefree and just play for the story. Either way, they need to be on the same page.

But it's complexity is why I love 3.5 so much, there is great fun in designing a character, making a unique combination of classes come together to create something truly unique.

[The Trickster]

The Nature of the Christmas Tree

So, D&D characters bling out with a bunch of magic items. I expect that in a game focused on killing monsters and taking their stuff.
My first problem with it is that many of these items are not actually items you enjoy having, they are just items you have to have around to stay relevant in the numbers game (see Modifier Accounting above). I'd like to see a magic item system where using interesting magic items doesn't mean you must sacrifice your numerical potential. I know that finding a Longsword +1 is about the holiest of the holy D&D cows, but I really feel like having a burger when I think about the game design involved.

My second problem is that gold and the WBL guidelines indicating how much more gold a higher level character should have than a lower level character, are just about the only limits characters have on the kind of power they can access through items (and items have lots of powers). How is it, assuming that having high-level class features would be inappropriate on mid-level characters, that I can buy items replicating high level class features? If I play nicely I spend my 5th-level characters' gold on buying a Wisdom +2 item rather than a scroll of, say, Elemental Swarm (a weak 9th level spell that would clear out most 5th-level dungeons with no contest), but why on earth do I have the option?

I'll agree with this. I never liked the idea that my characters were more about what I was wearing, and not what the character was capable of.

[Phelix-Mu]

I love 3.5. But I've been in a relationship with it long enough to have an opinion on its character flaws.

Beautifully put, and I like several of your points. I too love the game (probably a great deal more than is prudent), but loving something doesn't have to mean a totally neutral or entirely positive stance regarding its characteristics.

The math issue is one to consider, especially since a level of complexity developed in 3e that directly led to the 4e initiative and a massive simplification/oversimplification of the system (this was probably well-intentioned move on the part of developers, it just went too far and changed too much for my tastes).

So here is a problem that many games run into in their modelling mechanics. A game designer often wants complex situations to be able to arise and be resolved in a systematic, non-arbitrary manner. To achieve this, a ruleset is developed that attempts to encompass the majority of likely situations and to devolve these situations into a mechanic that can be further adapted by the DM in novel situations. In short, a framework that is both internally exhaustive (or as close as is possible), while remaining flexible enough to expand into the many possible situations that can arise in a game.

Thus, the mechanics of the ruleset attempt to both define the possibilities of the game on a micro scale (the encounter set in tactical time), while also defining a baseline for what is possible on the macro scale (the setting in strategic and historical time). The DM is the mediator for smoothing out the many wrinkles in this system, in particular as one moves into an ever expanding out-of-combat timescale.

A complex system will tend toward ever greater complexity is a truism that is perfectly modeled in 3e (and D&D generally over the years). The problem is that, eventually the ruleset becomes so burdensome for players and DMs that operating within it begins to ruin the verisimilitude that is desirable in the less-defined, freeform role playing aspect that has also always been part of the game.

In short, the main way to handle the math issue is for the DM to gauge at the start of a campaign the amount of math/system complexity that the DM and the players can tolerate while still allowing for a desirable amount of freeform role playing. This varies dramatically from group to group, and, in particular, based on the temperament of the players and the group dynamic (e.g., too many numbers in a light-hearted, joke-heavy session will disrupt and detract from the jovial atmosphere, and while some mechanics are always necessary, too much stands to isolate the DM or single players from the others, never a desirable outcome in a social game).

[huttj509]

Beautifully put, and I like several of your points. I too love the game (probably a great deal more than is prudent), but loving something doesn't have to mean a totally neutral or entirely positive stance regarding its characteristics.

The math issue is one to consider, especially since a level of complexity developed in 3e that directly led to the 4e initiative and a massive dumbing down of the system (said in no derogatory sense, this was probably well-intentioned move on the part of developers, it just went too far and changed too much for my tastes).



I see what you're getting at. I think "streamlining" or "simplification" of the system would better communicate your point without the negative vibes. "Oversimplification" would work too.

[Phelix-Mu]

I see what you're getting at. I think "streamlining" or "simplification" of the system would better communicate your point without the negative vibes. "Oversimplification" would work too.

A decent suggestion. I will edit forthwith.

EDIT: Done and done.:smallsmile:

[Larkas]

The Test of Spite ban list (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6885281&postcount=2) might be a good place to start.

I've seen that before. It is a very nice start, but doesn't go far enough in some aspects, and is too arbitrary in others. It was made for an arena environment, and works very well for that specific purpose, but I think that a more general, comprehensive list might be needed.


I also agree on the pre-banning issue. A player should know ahead of time about houserules. That said, there is a veritable mountain of material in 3.5, some of which can be very hard to access ahead of time without ample internet savvy. Thus, on-the-spot rulings.

If you want to see what I ban on the spot, I think anything that = infinite spell combo or infinite damage and the like will get an on the spot rules revision. I find that arcane fusion and kindred spells combine only poorly with Rapid Metamagic, and so recursive spell chains of orb of force quickly become arbitrarily strong. Let us not speak of body out of body. While legitimate use of these spells exists, the potential for abuse is so high that rewrite or outright ban is hard to avoid in my game.

I am still undecided about celerity. It has legit use, but man, talk about wizards not needing access to more action economy. Immediate actions should be extremely, extremely few in number, as the game is kind of fundamentally turn-based. Feather fall is pretty legit, and I can probably let Immediate Magic ACF slide, and ToB counters are relatively tame. Letting wizards cast w/e spell out of their turn is, well, unnecessarily powerful. The fact that daze immunity is an actual thing really just reinforces my feeling. Big bang, small buck, and the wizard is so crazy rich that the price of this power just rolls off his/her/its back.

True that. No ban list can be entirely infallible. There will always be something below the radar that might wreck a game. That said, a good enough list should reduce those occurrences to a healthily low amount.


Since you did ask, +10 to a skill as a second level spell is okay, but remember guidance of the avatar, which casters can use for a +20 to any skill for the same 2nd level slot. In general, if you're of the school that casters should not be able to invalidate skillful classes like rogues, then you should simply banhammer all skill spells.

+10 to escape artist checks for a 4th level slot is abysmal compared to other 4th level effects (enervation, death ward, polymorph, divine power, foebane,etc). no one would be willing to cast that instead of a different spell.

+10 to AC (what bonus type is it? if it's untyped, that's too powerful for a 2nd level slot) is, depending on armor type can be merely very powerful (natural armor, such as the also 2nd lvl barkskin (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/barkskin.htm) which you will notice gives a much smaller bonus for the same spell lvl, down to being downright ridiculous (if it's deflection or godforbid dodge)

well, that's what the message board is for. this sounds like a great topic for a new thread where I and others would be happy to help you out with balancing:

a good thing to keep in mind when you're trying to nerfbat spells is to compare them to similar effects that are the same level. is this noticeably stronger/weaker than this spell that does the same thing? if so, you probably need to adjust the numbers

Guidance of the Avatar is... Severely underleveled, IMHO. It should be at least a 3rd level spell, maybe even 4th. It makes many skill checks simply irrelevant.

I agree on your assessment on Freedom of Movement, though. Maybe +20? Please note that this is merely to substitute the invulnerability to grapple, the other effects should still be there.

On Wind Wall, you're mostly correct. Please note that, while it is very powerful, it is still much weaker than the original spell. Maybe +1/2 CL to AC? Deflection, most probably?

Anyways, I agree with you, this might be a great topic to start a thread to discuss it. I'm going on a trip very soon, as soon as I'm back I'll be sure to start it! And thanks for the advice! :smallsmile:

[Venger]

Guidance of the Avatar is... Severely underleveled, IMHO. It should be at least a 3rd level spell, maybe even 4th. It makes many skill checks simply irrelevant.

well... I was agreeing with that. I was just saying that if you feel +10 to a skill is unfair, that you should also remove more flagrant offenders like guidance of the avatar. all some classes have to offer is skills, and if you have one in your party, it's not nice to take that away from them when you can already do everythning else with spells.



I agree on your assessment on Freedom of Movement, though. Maybe +20? Please note that this is merely to substitute the invulnerability to grapple, the other effects should still be there.
I did not get that from what you typed. I thought you meant it was just +10 to EA for a 4th. if it's that in addition to moving underwater, immunity to solid fog, black tentacles, etc, then that's not especially unreasonable.



On Wind Wall, you're mostly correct. Please note that, while it is very powerful, it is still much weaker than the original spell. Maybe +1/2 CL to AC? Deflection, most probably?

how long do arrows and similar projectiles (does anyone actually use slings?) remain relevant in your games? by the time I hit 9, the only ranged projectile attacks were giants busting my coconut with boulders, which it specifically calls out as being fair game. it also does nothing to mess with rays, or other spells, like AoEs. it's pretty great right when you get it at 3 and not for very long thereafter. I think you may be overestimating wind wall's effectiveness.




Anyways, I agree with you, this might be a great topic to start a thread to discuss it. I'm going on a trip very soon, as soon as I'm back I'll be sure to start it! And thanks for the advice! :smallsmile:

great! make sure and provide a link (along with on-topic content of course) when you do, I'll make sure and follow you over.

One thing that rustles my jimmies about 3e is the lack of support for a lot of interesting classes and alternate systems (incarnum, invocations, mysteries, etc)

[Kalaska'Agathas]

none needed you are actually still on topic as this deals with your own complaint about what bugs you with 3rd ed

I once upon a tme thought about adding a weapons base damage for every iterative attack a character gets, but never implemented it and actuall never thought of it again till now, so thank for jogging my old memory.

so from 1-5 a long sword welded by a fighter does 1-8
at 6-10 it does 2-16
at 11-15 it does 3-24
and finally at 16-20 it does 4-32 dmg.

does that make weapon damage seem better?

Eh, if I'm looking to do damage with a longsword the base damage is going to be such a small part of it that doubling, trebling, or quadrupling the damage is of no great importance.

As to what bugs me about 3.5, I'd have to say the influence of the writings of Jack Vance (or, rather, that there is no alternative given to Vancian spellcasting &c.) and the lack of support for Psionics (and the needless nerfs in Complete Psionic) generally.

[Dimers]

I'm disappointed by the widely varying support for different aspects of the ever-broadening system. Not all of WotC's products are OGL, and they've spent a lot of effort fighting to maintain control of IP for something that can't actually earn them money any more. I'd love to see them throw it open, hear them say, "Okay, everybody, do whatever you want with Incarnum/initiators/Truenaming/adjusting CR ratings/fixing the monk/fixing Diplomacy/psionics/inherent bonuses/etc."

My other complaints about 3rd ed are really about how people USE what's available -- that is to say, how many people use it without understanding what they're getting into. Don't combine a BC wizard with a fighter and a monk, because LFQW ... don't complain about WBL and Christmas trees while you continue throwing only high-CR encounters at the party ... don't assume that a rogue will be appropriate or necessary for a trap-filled dungeon. Assumptions are costly. You could say in each such case that the system itself is wrong, and that's a valid viewpoint, but you could just as well say that the DM and players aren't applying the system(s) correctly to their gameworld and play style.