What Didn't 3.x Get Right?

[Trunamer]

Recently we had the ...Right thread, which was great fun, but now I'm interested in the other side of the 3.x coin. What are 3.x's great ideas that didn't quite pan out as expected? What was poorly conceived and/or implemented by the devs? Is there anything downright bad?

[Keneth]

Truenamer...

[Emperor Tippy]

Truenamer, Monk, Fighter, melee in general, Archery in general, spell balance, editing, something approaching sanity in the design process.

[The Viscount]

These. All of these. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=267985)

Also, grappling is very complicated and difficult to master. I don't like how complex turning is, but that's likely a personal thing.

[Deepbluediver]

These. All of these. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=267985)

Yeah, that. Its an excellent resource for homebrewers who like to fix things.


To stay on target: the basic mechanics of it's spell-system.
You need to roll a dice for just about everything in 3.5, except for casting a spell. I declare fireball and it simply works, and any avoidance or resistance is on my target. Essentially, offensive actions are passive while defensive actions are active, in direct contrast to everything else.

So if you want to interfere with spellcasting in some way, it either requires messing around with skills (Spellcraft & Concentration, primarily) or a completely arbitrary Arcane Spell Failure Chance.

Most people's experience of rolling to cast spells is (unfortunately) with the Trunamer, probably the most truely broken (non-functional) class in 3.5. But rolls for spells does not need to be linked to skills, any more than melee attacks do. IMO, spellcasting should have it's own roll mechanics for a chance of failure and success, just like everything else, because skill-checks are highly variable depending on optimization level and are in no way balanced with relation to combat.

[eggynack]

I really dislike traps. They're basically just a resource tax that require no skill and have very little room for role playing. You either have a rogue or rogue effect, and you're fine, or you don't, and you take damage. It's all very linear, boring, and pointless. It's also effectively a single person activity, so you either skip it, and bore the rogue, or have it, and bore everyone else. However, encounter traps seem awesome. Those things seem to solve all of my issues with traps in general.

[Emmerask]

Recently we had the ...Right thread, which was great fun, but now I'm interested in the other side of the 3.x coin. What are 3.x's great ideas that didn't quite pan out as expected? What was poorly conceived and/or implemented by the devs? Is there anything downright bad?

Skillpoints, I like the concept of skills because it adds a layer of depth to characters but the d&d implementation was just terrible on so many levels.

Having skillpoints be effected (that much) by intelligence is mechanically just a bad idea.
Having arbitrary class skill lists is bad too (fighter has practically none wizard has everything why?)
having different skill point gains based on the profession chosen is also a terrible idea both mechanically and from a "realism" standpoint

Balancing, though they tried they failed as hard as one can fail pretty much^^

Combat for mundane characters
its not only mechanically inferior, its also just boring ^^

[Morty]

3.x has several basic design assumptions that plainly do not work. The numbers combat is based on don't scale properly at all. The value of spells is vastly underestimated. There doesn't seem to be any proper idea of how much a feat is worth. It's because of such things that 3.x is largely non-functional the way it is.

[Amphetryon]

Spell Resistance (and AC, come to think of it) is either entirely inconsequential, leading to monsters with it to be over-CRed, or nigh-unbeatable, leading to either a TPK or the world's most drawn-out pillow fight.

[Jeff the Green]

Soulknife, shadowcaster, druid, wizard school specialization, level adjustment, Spot checks, Knowledge skills, mounted combat, turning (The Viscount mentioned it, but I list it for a different reason: it doesn't work past low levels because undead HD scales so quickly).

That's just off the top of my head.

[eggynack]

Orb of X and cure X wounds being in conjuration is dumb. There are some other examples of poor spell typing and sub-typing, but those are the worst in my opinion. Also, the frigging stat blocks. These are the sheets that players are supposed to look to for guidance, and they don't get the first thing right about them.

[Invader]

These. All of these. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=267985)

Also, grappling is very complicated and difficult to master. I don't like how complex turning is, but that's likely a personal thing.

No i agree, turning is entirely more complicated than it needs to be.

[Keneth]

Having skillpoints be effected (that much) by intelligence is mechanically just a bad idea.

Why? I have a vastly greater repertoire of skills in real life than many of the less intelligent people I'm surrounded with (not meant to imply anyone in this thread and/or forum, so don't get your panties in a bunch). Obviously there are other factors involved, you can't really dissolve the brain into three arbitrary numbers, and propose that one of them is entirely responsible for one's skill set, but as far as I can tell, there's a clear correlation between intelligence and the capacity for acquiring new skills.

Whether it's a good idea for a game system, well that's a whole other matter. But D&D at least tries to be a simulation of reality where applicable, even if it means messing with the balance.


Having arbitrary class skill lists is bad too (fighter has practically none wizard has everything why?)
having different skill point gains based on the profession chosen is also a terrible idea both mechanically and from a "realism" standpoint

I disagree, a different number of skill points implies a different focus in the chosen profession, although I'm not too fond of how those skill points are given (why do barbarians get more points than fighters?). And class skills are meant to restrict those points to a more narrow field. Again, I don't like the sets of skills given to respective classes, but the concept makes sense. Simply tweaking the number of points and the skill lists of classes can go a long way here. Sadly, such changes are too big to be errata'd, but I am surprised that such rudimentary mistakes endured from 3.0 to 3.5 and from 3.5 to PF.

[Temotei]

Whether it's a good idea for a game system, well that's a whole other matter. But D&D at least tries to be a simulation of reality where applicable, even if it means messing with the balance.

Hence the "mechanically" bit. :smalltongue:

[Keneth]

Hence the "mechanically" bit. :smalltongue:

It's only mechanically bad if it doesn't work. It works exactly as intended, so it's just fine mechanically. :smalltongue:

[jindra34]

Making sure things fit together. And assumptions worked. And understanding of the consequences of the changes.

[Draz74]

I think the most fundamental issues would be something like:


Math problems. Particularly the way even the good save progression barely keeps up with the way Save DCs scale, while the poor save progression pretty much becomes an auto-fail. Also the way AC scaling is mostly dependent on equipment (or arbitrarily high Natural Armor bonuses, for monsters), rather than character skill. Also, I guess, the demonstrable superiority of two-handed Power Attack compared to other combat styles.
The "full attack" system. Making "more attacks each round" be the main appeal of more martial classes is a flawed paradigm in at least three ways:

It makes combat less mobile, terrain and tactics less relevant, by giving melee combatants (on both sides of a combat) an incentive to stay in one place while they fight.
It leads class design away from martial characters being able to do anything offensively other than deal damage.
It makes high-level combat take a lot longer.

Making spells more powerful than everything else on the basis of them being limited in per-day uses. At best (i.e. at low levels), this leads to game balance being too dependent on the pacing of the game (i.e. the spellcasters are overpowered if they only fight 1/day, too weak if they fight 9/day). At worst (i.e. at high levels), the per-day limits of spells cease to be a scarcity at all, and anything without spellcasting (or similar) is simply left out in the cold.
Diplomacy rules. Yeah, I'm trying to concentrate on broad, sweeping problems rather than individual rules, here, but Diplomacy is such an important part of RPing and is so borked that it warrants an exception.
Cross-class skill rules are way too restrictive. Pigeonholing.
The fear of giving non-skillmonkeys a decent amount of skill points ends up just being a declaration against some classes (e.g. Fighter) that "thou shalt not contribute to noncombat situations."
Way too many fiddly (aka temporary or situational) die modifiers to keep track of. I hesitate to include this one, since it's a symptom of most other rules-heavy RPGs too (4e, GURPS, Legend, even Unisystem or M&M). But it's still an issue.
This one's almost too broad and vague to include, but ... failure to think about what different abilities could be used for when they are written up, and writing sensible limitations into them preemptively. In particular, this is intended as a jab against summoning/calling/polymorph.
Too much emphasis on magical equipment, leading to the Christmas Tree Effect. Even if body slots and money are going to be the only limitations on magic item selection, the system could work a lot better with (a) a less exponential WBL curve; (b) a better spread of items from interesting-and-handy-but-cheap (a la MIC) to truly-powerful-worthy-of-high-level; (c) better custom item guidelines, especially when it comes to combining multiple items into one body slot.

[RogueDM]

Skillpoints, I like the concept of skills because it adds a layer of depth to characters but the d&d implementation was just terrible on so many levels.

Having skillpoints be effected (that much) by intelligence is mechanically just a bad idea.
Having arbitrary class skill lists is bad too (fighter has practically none wizard has everything why?)
having different skill point gains based on the profession chosen is also a terrible idea both mechanically and from a "realism" standpoint

Balancing, though they tried they failed as hard as one can fail pretty much^^

Combat for mundane characters
its not only mechanically inferior, its also just boring ^^

I fundamentally disagree with... most of this.

Without being integral to your skill acquisition Intelligence becomes almost useless, save for a minor (and increasingly irrelevant) modifier to a number of skills. Unless you're a wizard. Every other ability score has a potential use to every class, whether or not they choose to capitalize on it. Without its impact on skill gain INT would become the defacto dump-stat. And that's Charisma's job.

Class-based skill lists I understand as well. If your focus and training are on being a fighter you probably are going to be doing more jumping, climbing, etc than you will be identifying spells. You aren't barred from doing other things, it just takes extra time/effort represented by the Cross-Class skill cost. Would it allow for more customization to start with a shortened number of integral Class Skills and then give a dependent number of Pick-Your-Own Class Skills? Definitely.

I DO agree with the Class-Dependent skill point gain being a bit capricious. I get that it balances out with the number of skills available (usually) but "genius" fighter will still gain fewer points than a mentally deficient wizard. That's a bit lame.

Regarding balancing, there are plenty of ways to balance something worse than 3.x just look at half or more of the content on dandwiki's homebrew stuff.

And for mundane combat being boring, that seems more subjective. I had a great deal of fun running a rogue/fighter. Utilized a lot of the combat options and feats. Definitely was overshadowed by the party wizard in many instances (clearing minions), but if I had wanted to explode rooms with fireballs I had taken the wrong class. I wanted to be a rapier wielding D'artagnan -esque figure, and had a load of fun doing so.

[eggynack]

Regarding balancing, there are plenty of ways to balance something worse than 3.x just look at half or more of the content on dandwiki's homebrew stuff.

This so very wrong. First off, dandwiki is pretty much terrible. Second, just because something can be fixed, that doesn't mean it isn't broken.

[drew2u]

...or the world's most drawn-out pillow fight.
You make me want to HB a two-handed bludgeoning vorpal pillow...

[Gnoman]

This so very wrong. First off, dandwiki is pretty much terrible. Second, just because something can be fixed, that doesn't mean it isn't broken.

He wasn't claiming that DanDwiki homebrew fixed anything. He was claiming that it was objectively worse balanced than 3.5 is, in response to a statement that 3.5 is as badly balanced as it is possible to be.

[eggynack]

He wasn't claiming that DanDwiki homebrew fixed anything. He was claiming that it was objectively worse balanced than 3.5 is, in response to a statement that 3.5 is as badly balanced as it is possible to be.
Ah. I misread that. To be fair, it was pretty oddly punctuated. Anyway, the existence of a worse thing doesn't make a bad thing stop being bad.

[Morty]

I think the most fundamental issues would be something like:


Math problems. Particularly the way even the good save progression barely keeps up with the way Save DCs scale, while the poor save progression pretty much becomes an auto-fail. Also the way AC scaling is mostly dependent on equipment (or arbitrarily high Natural Armor bonuses, for monsters), rather than character skill. Also, I guess, the demonstrable superiority of two-handed Power Attack compared to other combat styles.
The "full attack" system. Making "more attacks each round" be the main appeal of more martial classes is a flawed paradigm in at least three ways:

It makes combat less mobile, terrain and tactics less relevant, by giving melee combatants (on both sides of a combat) an incentive to stay in one place while they fight.
It leads class design away from martial characters being able to do anything offensively other than deal damage.
It makes high-level combat take a lot longer.

Making spells more powerful than everything else on the basis of them being limited in per-day uses. At best (i.e. at low levels), this leads to game balance being too dependent on the pacing of the game (i.e. the spellcasters are overpowered if they only fight 1/day, too weak if they fight 9/day). At worst (i.e. at high levels), the per-day limits of spells cease to be a scarcity at all, and anything without spellcasting (or similar) is simply left out in the cold.
Diplomacy rules. Yeah, I'm trying to concentrate on broad, sweeping problems rather than individual rules, here, but Diplomacy is such an important part of RPing and is so borked that it warrants an exception.
Cross-class skill rules are way too restrictive. Pigeonholing.
The fear of giving non-skillmonkeys a decent amount of skill points ends up just being a declaration against some classes (e.g. Fighter) that "thou shalt not contribute to noncombat situations."
Way too many fiddly (aka temporary or situational) die modifiers to keep track of. I hesitate to include this one, since it's a symptom of most other rules-heavy RPGs too (4e, GURPS, Legend, even Unisystem or M&M). But it's still an issue.
This one's almost too broad and vague to include, but ... failure to think about what different abilities could be used for when they are written up, and writing sensible limitations into them preemptively. In particular, this is intended as a jab against summoning/calling/polymorph.
Too much emphasis on magical equipment, leading to the Christmas Tree Effect. Even if body slots and money are going to be the only limitations on magic item selection, the system could work a lot better with (a) a less exponential WBL curve; (b) a better spread of items from interesting-and-handy-but-cheap (a la MIC) to truly-powerful-worthy-of-high-level; (c) better custom item guidelines, especially when it comes to combining multiple items into one body slot.


I'd add one point to this list: too much focus on restrictions. 3.x rules spend a lot of time telling you what you can't do, especially if you're not a spellcaster. And the number of viable character concepts in a core game is depressingly narrow. It's already mentioned in some of the points, but it deserves to be pointed out.

[Emperor Tippy]

It's because of such things that 3.x is largely non-functional the way it is.
That I will disagree with. D&D 3.5 is plenty functional, part of the problem is that both the players and DM often refuse to use that functionality.

For example, one of the most common complaints about high level play is that everyone is buffed so much that combat becomes mostly pointless. Well there is a 9th level spell right there in core called Disjunction which will auto strip an entire party of buffs with one standard action. Most groups refuse to use it though.

Same with bitching about things like nested demiplanes and it being impossible to reach a high level caster to kill them. A single Wish will drop the entire party right next to that enemy caster regardless of any defenses that he might have. Wish in a high level fighter to the square right next to the enemy caster which triggers his Craft Contingent Disjunction to strip all buffs followed by his Craft Contingent Greater Celerity to ensure he gets to act followed by a full attack with a Thinaun weapon.

That little combo will kill virtually any caster with very little chance of failure.

There are very few things in 3.5 that don't have counters, bypasses, or work around's. Most people just don't think of them or refuse to use them for whatever reason.

[Draz74]

And the number of viable character concepts in a core game is depressingly narrow.

This is true, but somehow I don't see it as one of the fundamental flaws of the system. Maybe because I don't feel like an infinite variety of archetypes was something that was really one of D&D's goals (especially in Core -- which is understandable if not ideal).

There are plenty of things I'd like to be different about D&D (besides specific fixes, which are their own kettle of fish) that still don't qualify as "fundamental flaws" for me. Vancian casting, for example -- it's not my favorite aesthetic, but that doesn't mean the daily spell slots system couldn't have been a good system if the overpoweredness aspects were fixed.

[Jeff the Green]

Soulknife, shadowcaster, druid, wizard school specialization, level adjustment, Spot checks, Knowledge skills, mounted combat, turning (The Viscount mentioned it, but I list it for a different reason: it doesn't work past low levels because undead HD scales so quickly).

That's just off the top of my head.

I'm going to expand on mine since I have a bit more time right now.


Soulknife's concept is okay (I'm not a fan, but a lot of people are), but it basically gives you something you'd be buying anyway, with less flexibility. Plus it only has 3/4 BAB.
Shadowcaster is an awesome concept, but has so few uses of its mysteries to be almost useless. Even its creator recognized that and posted a revision.
Druid obviates mundane classes starting at level 1, and it only gets worse as time goes on.
Wizards' specialization is meant to be an even trade. You get extra spells in exchange for versatility. But because the schools aren't equal and a lot of them are redundant (Conjuration is better for blasting than Evocation, for instance), specialization is almost a straight power boost. The only exceptions are the domain and elven generalist ACFs.
Level adjustment is meant to allow players to play powerful races, but in reality it makes them too weak to keep up. Losing HD (and therefore CL on Su abilities and SLAs, saves, and skill points) sucks.
Spot checks scale poorly. Via rules in underdark, you can see the sun but not the stars, and certainly not the moon. Likewise the size bonuses/penalties don't work.
Knowledge checks to ID monsters shouldn't be based on HD. Each monster should have its own DC based on rarity. Commoners should be able to ID cows, pigs, and humans without problems.
Mounted combat is borked in many ways, most egregiously in the Ride By Attack feat.
Turning is fine in the first couple levels, but since undead racial HD are so crappy (d12 HD is nice, but there's no Con to back it up; poor BAB on things that are mostly beatsticks) they have to go up faster than the players' level to keep up.

[Morty]

This is true, but somehow I don't see it as one of the fundamental flaws of the system. Maybe because I don't feel like an infinite variety of archetypes was something that was really one of D&D's goals (especially in Core -- which is understandable if not ideal).

There are plenty of things I'd like to be different about D&D (besides specific fixes, which are their own kettle of fish) that still don't qualify as "fundamental flaws" for me. Vancian casting, for example -- it's not my favorite aesthetic, but that doesn't mean the daily spell slots system couldn't have been a good system if the overpoweredness aspects were fixed.

Hmmm, fair point, I suppose. I don't think an infinite variety of archetypes should be the goal, but core 3.x makes quite a few classic fantasy concepts suck. Still, I suppose it's not a fundamental flaw written deeply into the system like some other things.

[eggynack]

Hmmm, fair point, I suppose. I don't think an infinite variety of archetypes should be the goal, but core 3.x makes quite a few classic fantasy concepts suck. Still, I suppose it's not a fundamental flaw written deeply into the system like some other things.
Aside from archery and sword and board, I can't think of too many archetypes that don't really work. Even archery can kinda work as a ranger with non-core spells, or a zen archery cleric. It's obviously not perfect, but it's a thing of some kind. Sometimes, it wouldn't even be noticeable that they're missing a viable archetype if they hadn't made a failed version. Like, I don't think that many people were demanding a truenamer (as cool as it could be) or a soul knife prior to the utter failure of those classes.

[Kudaku]

Marrying full attacks and full round actions makes for very static fighting. You'll get five-foot steps but a decent amount of the time you'll have two fighters standing more or less still exchanging full attacks.

Compare to most exciting duels in games, films, books etc that focus a lot on moving in and out of range, swinging chandeliers, and so on.

[Emperor Tippy]

Factotum's can make great archers.

Honestly, they are probably the best non full casting assassination class in the game and they can put +104d6+38 (or more, potentially double depending upon how your DM rules Splitting interacts with Cunning Strike) damage into your head from upwards of 2,000 feet out. Or hit 25 or so individual targets from the same range, each for 4d6+25 (dealt twice).

Then you hide for five minutes and get to do it all over again.

[eggynack]

Factotum's can make great archers.

Honestly, they are probably the best non full casting assassination class in the game and they can put +104d6+38 (or more, potentially double depending upon how your DM rules Splitting interacts with Cunning Strike) damage into your head from upwards of 2,000 feet out. Or hit 25 or so individual targets from the same range, each for 4d6+25 (dealt twice).

Then you hide for five minutes and get to do it all over again.
Huh. I'd never actually thought about factotums as good archers. That does sound like it could work out pretty well, though hiding for five minutes is a bit less good in the heat of battle. I suppose that the ideal is that you just hide in places and solo everything, but it's not really a plan conducive to a fun game experience. Still, I can definitely see that as a replacement for the standard iajatsu focus build. If you are always attacking at range, making each combat a new encounter is probably pretty trivial, so you can nova out repeatedly.

[Icewraith]

Character creation for newbies.

Either you're expected to read the first half or so of the PHB to understand your options in making a character, or the DM hands you a sheet and explains things as they go. One is boring and can eliminate any desire the new player had to participate in the game. Since people don't like to disrupt other people's fun and don't like to be seen as incompetent or stupid, it can be difficult to get a new player to engage as they have no idead what the heck is going on or what they can or cannot do.

This sort of panic I call the "china in a bull shop" effect.

[Emperor Tippy]

Huh. I'd never actually thought about factotums as good archers. That does sound like it could work out pretty well, though hiding for five minutes is a bit less good in the heat of battle. I suppose that the ideal is that you just hide in places and solo everything, but it's not really a plan conducive to a fun game experience. Still, I can definitely see that as a replacement for the standard iajatsu focus build. If you are always attacking at range, making each combat a new encounter is probably pretty trivial, so you can nova out repeatedly.

Spend two feats for Hidden Talent and Psicrystal Affinity and then have one of your Psicrystal's feats be Mindsight. Then use Craft Contingent Guided Shot, Craft Contingent Wraithstrike, and Craft Contingent Sniper's Shot.

Your Psicrystal finds targets for you, Guided shot negates anything less than total concealment and negates range increment penalties, Sniper's Shot lets you make a sneak attack from any range, Wraitstrike means you are trying to hit touch AC. Be flying up in the air 2,000 or so feet away.

All the sudden your enemy gets hit in the head with an arrow dealing enough damage to kill an Adult Red dragon on average and with no real chance of being counter detected.

Players get so pissy when you do that to them.

[Snails]

Marrying full attacks and full round actions makes for very static fighting. You'll get five-foot steps but a decent amount of the time you'll have two fighters standing more or less still exchanging full attacks.

Compare to most exciting duels in games, films, books etc that focus a lot on moving in and out of range, swinging chandeliers, and so on.

We all know the movies. Which games do that?

This is not an example of "What Didn't 3.x Get Right", but an example of "What 3.x Did Right But Could Be Even Better". 3.x is much more dynamic than most RPGs than came before -- just plain standing there and slugging it out without bothering to move at all is the "usual" mechanics.

Charges. Flanking. AoOs. 5-foot step. Full Attacks. Trips. Bull rushes. Grapples. Disarms. Defensive Fighting. Feats and class abilities that modify all of these above. 3e did not invent any one of these concepts, but did build up a much more full palette of mechanics and painted an interesting picture with it. That we think we can further improve on this is not a surprise.

In other words, 3.x is a startling success here. The success is proven by the fact we can now easily imagine other flavors of game by blending similar basic ingredients into something new.

[Starbuck_II]

Marrying full attacks and full round actions makes for very static fighting. You'll get five-foot steps but a decent amount of the time you'll have two fighters standing more or less still exchanging full attacks.

Compare to most exciting duels in games, films, books etc that focus a lot on moving in and out of range, swinging chandeliers, and so on.

Just five everyone skirmish ability from scout (double scout's bonus to make up for it).
Now you can full attack or not but skirmish style is actually decent now.

[Snails]

Character creation for newbies.

...

This sort of panic I call the "china in a bull shop" effect.


As a design goal, I want to have interesting options for how my PC develops at roughly every level. Whether that is which class to level in, which feat to choose, where to put skill points, or how to spend money is not important. 3.x happens to allow all of these, which turns out to be Way Too Much Of A Good Thing for many people dipping their toe into the game.

But I so love the turn of phrase "china in a bull shop", I will need to borrow it...

[navar100]

Skill point allocation. Cross-class skill point costs is a terrible idea. It adds insult to injury for 2 + Int points per level non-Int needed classes. 3E should not have shoe-horned classes into taking particular skills and nothing else how dare they.

Particular Feats are dumb. There are obvious ones like Toughness and Dodge. Perhaps less obvious is the Two-Weapon Fighting tree. Not because of Power Attack's boost to two-handed weapons but its ridiculous high Dexterity requirement. It does not bother me if it's a sub-optimal choice for damage dealing. It bothers me it's too hard to get. At least they got rid of useless Ambidexterity from 3.0. It's a symptom of the designers' flaw. They overemphasized the power of making an attack roll and underemphasized the power of casting a spell.

Restrictive multiclassing of monk and paladin. Personally I almost never multiclass anyway, but for those who do like to this was stupid.

[Philistine]

The "1d20+modifiers" mechanic is a problem. Don't get me wrong, the general idea of tying everything to a single mechanic is sound, but this particular mechanic is awfully swingy. The broad range and lack of any central tendency on the die roll generally devalue the modifiers that are supposed to represent the characters' actual skill at whatever task they're attempting - literally, it's better to be lucky than good. (Except at the extremes, when modifiers are so high or so low relative to the DCs that the die roll is trivialized instead.)

[angry_bear]

Skill point allocation. Cross-class skill point costs is a terrible idea. It adds insult to injury for 2 + Int points per level non-Int needed classes. 3E should not have shoe-horned classes into taking particular skills and nothing else how dare they.

Particular Feats are dumb. There are obvious ones like Toughness and Dodge. Perhaps less obvious is the Two-Weapon Fighting tree. Not because of Power Attack's boost to two-handed weapons but its ridiculous high Dexterity requirement. It does not bother me if it's a sub-optimal choice for damage dealing. It bothers me it's too hard to get. At least they got rid of useless Ambidexterity from 3.0. It's a symptom of the designers' flaw. They overemphasized the power of making an attack roll and underemphasized the power of casting a spell.

Restrictive multiclassing of monk and paladin. Personally I almost never multiclass anyway, but for those who do like to this was stupid.



TWF was designed almost exclusively with Rangers in mind. They don't need to meet the requirements, they just need to choose it as their combat style. Sure other classes can take the feats, but like you said, they have a tougher time meeting all the requirements while still being able to attack effectively. Whereas a Ranger can still take feats such as weapon finesse, and weapon focus, (Or something better lol) the rogue or non human fighter take longer to best use TWF.

I don't have a problem with the restrictions to multiclassing when it comes to Monks and Paladins. It's primarily about fluff, and if you really wanted to multi class, a couple of levels in Cleric or Rogue will typically be much more useful than Pally or Monk. Although I'm pretty sure thay Eberron did away with those restrictions for the classes didn't it?

[Emmerask]

Why? I have a vastly greater repertoire of skills in real life than many of the less intelligent people I'm surrounded with (not meant to imply anyone in this thread and/or forum, so don't get your panties in a bunch). Obviously there are other factors involved, you can't really dissolve the brain into three arbitrary numbers, and propose that one of them is entirely responsible for one's skill set, but as far as I can tell, there's a clear correlation between intelligence and the capacity for acquiring new skills.

Whether it's a good idea for a game system, well that's a whole other matter. But D&D at least tries to be a simulation of reality where applicable, even if it means messing with the balance.


I agree in so far that it should have an impact, however in d&d its far too much, what I would have liked would be something like this:
12-16 int = +1 skillpoint
18 -22 = +2
24+ = +3
And then the base points for every class are increased.





I disagree, a different number of skill points implies a different focus in the chosen profession, although I'm not too fond of how those skill points are given (why do barbarians get more points than fighters?). And class skills are meant to restrict those points to a more narrow field. Again, I don't like the sets of skills given to respective classes, but the concept makes sense. Simply tweaking the number of points and the skill lists of classes can go a long way here. Sadly, such changes are too big to be errata'd, but I am surprised that such rudimentary mistakes endured from 3.0 to 3.5 and from 3.5 to PF.

Professions shouldn´t give you skillpoints, they should allow you cheaper skillgain in fields that belong to that profession.
Overall what I would have liked to see would be that
a) everyone can train any skill he likes to the same level (level +4 I think it was ^^)
b) there are 3 cost categories 1 to 3 points / skillpoint

wizard for example would have
-knowledge Arcane, Spellcraft, Concentration and one other knowledge (choose yourself) for 1 point
- knowledge nature, handle animal, knowledge local would cost 3 points
-the rest would cost 2 points


I fundamentally disagree with... most of this.

Without being integral to your skill acquisition Intelligence becomes almost useless, save for a minor (and increasingly irrelevant) modifier to a number of skills. Unless you're a wizard. Every other ability score has a potential use to every class, whether or not they choose to capitalize on it. Without its impact on skill gain INT would become the defacto dump-stat. And that's Charisma's job.


Intelligence not only boosts the number of spells by the most powerful class it also is used in a lot of skills... so far from useless



Class-based skill lists I understand as well. If your focus and training are on being a fighter you probably are going to be doing more jumping, climbing, etc than you will be identifying spells. You aren't barred from doing other things, it just takes extra time/effort represented by the Cross-Class skill cost. Would it allow for more customization to start with a shortened number of integral Class Skills and then give a dependent number of Pick-Your-Own Class Skills? Definitely.


But the wizard who studies spells day and night somehow learns a lot of other knowledge skills at the same time?



Regarding balancing, there are plenty of ways to balance something worse than 3.x just look at half or more of the content on dandwiki's homebrew stuff.


just because it is possible to balance something does not mean it is not completely and utterly broken, there being a ton of rebalancing works in fact is a good indicator that something IS broken ^^




And for mundane combat being boring, that seems more subjective. I had a great deal of fun running a rogue/fighter. Utilized a lot of the combat options and feats. Definitely was overshadowed by the party wizard in many instances (clearing minions), but if I had wanted to explode rooms with fireballs I had taken the wrong class. I wanted to be a rapier wielding D'artagnan -esque figure, and had a load of fun doing so.

The problem is choice and the lack there of for mundane fighters, you can attack or attack harder... thats not much ;)
Of course you can still have fun with a fighter but you could have much more fun if mundane combat would actually have options for you :smallwink:

[Blas_de_Lezo]

It stopped making money, so they had to write a new edition. Basic capitalism. It happens in D&D every 6 to10 years.

[Beheld]

Well there is a 9th level spell right there in core called Disjunction which will auto strip an entire party of buffs with one standard action. Most groups refuse to use it though.


To be fair, rolling 20-30 saves per player encourages me to never use that on PCs. Have you ever played a game, especially in person, where Game Disjunction on level 17+ players didn't slow the game to a halt while you developed how you were going to figure out what items died?


Then you hide for five minutes and get to do it all over again.

Well that part isn't RAW.

[Trunamer]

Truenamer...
Oh!

I see what you did there.

[Emperor Tippy]

To be fair, rolling 20-30 saves per player encourages me to never use that on PCs. Have you ever played a game, especially in person, where Game Disjunction on level 17+ players didn't slow the game to a halt while you developed how you were going to figure out what items died?
It's fairly easy.
1) Players should have their items in a numbered list.
2) Get an auto dice roller (like what this forum uses)
3) Figure out what the minimum dice roll for a successful save is.
4) Go down the item list putting a line through any items that died.

If they have re-rolls or the like than ask for each item. Takes a minute or so total.

Although for me I have the whole process automated for my RL group. Unless the player has re-rolls it takes maybe 10 seconds to handle disjunction.




Well that part isn't RAW.
IP recover at the beginning of each encounter. If you break contact then the encounter is over, five minutes is what ToB uses.

[Kudaku]

We all know the movies. Which games do that?

Off the top of my head I can think of two RPGs: Kingdoms of Amalur and Dark Souls. I'd argue most beat em ups have a heavy focus on movement in one way or another, as do shooters.


lots of stuff regarding combat maneuvers etc
First of all I'd point out that the thread title is "What didn't 3.x get right", not "what did 3.x get not quite right, but better than these other systems".

Furthermore, I'm not arguing that 3.x doesn't have various options to let you perform different moves in combat, it certainly does. My argument is that 3.x decided to make full attacks not allow you to move (except pounce and the like, which isn't primarily intended for PC characters), which makes combat very static movement-wise.

Look at a 5th level fighter. He is able to move his speed in various ways (and acrobatics/tumble, difficult terrain and AoOs etc are all interesting developments on this) and he still get his full offensive potential. For instance a 5th level archer fighter can use his move action to go prone and gain +4 vs ranged attacks and still take his ranged attack (unless he's using Rapid Shot or the like, which is a different facet of the same problem).

Now look at a 6th level fighter - he can't spend move actions without sacrificing a significant part of that combat potential.

I personally think it's a shame that the game encourages people to stand still in order to get their full attack chain, since it makes movement happen less frequently in combat. Personally I'd love to see more movement in my games.

[Beheld]

It's fairly easy.
1) Players should have their items in a numbered list.
2) Get an auto dice roller (like what this forum uses)
3) Figure out what the minimum dice roll for a successful save is.
4) Go down the item list putting a line through any items that died.

1) So first, everyone has to keep all their items in a numbered list, including updating the list every time they use a consumable or pick up a new item. That adds tremendous bookkeeping to everything all the time, and you should count all that time in your "10 seconds."

2) Use technology that not everyone has when they are playing at home.

3) You can use your saves instead of the items if yours are higher. Do you also have all your players write down in their numbered list all the items saves to make sure they are using the higher one?


IP recover at the beginning of each encounter. If you break contact then the encounter is over, five minutes is what ToB uses.

No, five minutes is what ToB uses for recovering manuevers besides encounters. There is no RAW definition of encounters, and since unlike ToB, the poorly written Factotum does not have a separate refresh mechanic, they can only get more IP at the next encounter, whatever the DM decides that is.

[Emperor Tippy]

1) So first, everyone has to keep all their items in a numbered list, including updating the list every time they use a consumable or pick up a new item. That adds tremendous bookkeeping to everything all the time, and you should count all that time in your "10 seconds."
It's not my fault that most players and groups are really bad at doing basic book keeping.


2) Use technology that not everyone has when they are playing at home.
Not my problem.


3) You can use your saves instead of the items if yours are higher. Do you also have all your players write down in their numbered list all the items saves to make sure they are using the higher one?
If they want to use the items saves then they should have them written down.

And yes, they should have it written down. Granted the level of book keeping that I expect is far more than a single character sheet. I should be able to pick up your character binder and run the entire game without ever having to open a single book for anything involving your character. It makes the game flow massively better.


No, five minutes is what ToB uses for recovering manuevers besides encounters. There is no RAW definition of encounters, and since unlike ToB, the poorly written Factotum does not have a separate refresh mechanic, they can only get more IP at the next encounter, whatever the DM decides that is.
If you want to go that stupid route then the Factotum has a million IP as they gain IP at the start of every encounter and have no maximum IP score.

By RAW a Factotum gains IP (as shown on the table) at the start of every encounter and only looses IP when they spend them on abilities.

Get one of your fellow PC's to punch you. That starts an encounter. Choose to end it amicably. That ends and encounter. Repeat for however many IP you want.

Once you break contact an encounter is over, once contact is reestablished a new encounter begins.

[Man on Fire]

Truenamer, Monk, Fighter, melee in general, Archery in general, spell balance, editing, something approaching sanity in the design process.

I don't belive I'm saying this, considering we two almost always argue, but Tippy's right.

[SiuiS]

These. All of these. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=267985)

Also, grappling is very complicated and difficult to master. I don't like how complex turning is, but that's likely a personal thing.

Grappling is easy. Grab te guy, hold on to the guy. If he doesn't break out, the crush, choke, immobilize or move him. Done.

[Beheld]

It's not my fault that most players and groups are really bad at doing basic book keeping.

...

If they want to use the items saves then they should have them written down.

And yes, they should have it written down. Granted the level of book keeping that I expect is far more than a single character sheet. I should be able to pick up your character binder and run the entire game without ever having to open a single book for anything involving your character. It makes the game flow massively better.

So... You think that it is absolutely mandatory for everyone to have an entire binder for their character, and that anyone who doesn't is "bad at bookkeeping?"

Do you not get that this is not an available option to most people? Most people do not have the option to make binders of all the associated rules that their character will ever need including, apparently, entire copies of the PHB for when their character gets grappled or tripped by a monster, or casts any spell at them.

Even those who theoretically could might not want to because they don't want to put hours of out of game effort into D&D before they play. There are entire subsets of players who don't play summoners or polymorphers because they don't want to deal with the extra bookkeeping, and you are saying that those people should do more bookkeeping than is required to play characters they won't play because of bookkeeping just to play in any games at all.

You didn't say, "I use Disjunction in my games." You said "I use Disjunction in my games, and everyone ever should use it in theirs."


Not my problem.

It is a problem with your argument that everyone should use Disjunction. If you are going to say that other people should use Disjunction in their game, reasons why it is impractical to them are in fact problems with your argument.


If you want to go that stupid route then the Factotum has a million IP as they gain IP at the start of every encounter and have no maximum IP score.

By RAW a Factotum gains IP (as shown on the table) at the start of every encounter and only looses IP when they spend them on abilities.

Yes, I agree with my previous statement in the post you quoted that the Factotum is poorly written.


Get one of your fellow PC's to punch you. That starts an encounter. Choose to end it amicably. That ends and encounter. Repeat for however many IP you want.

Except that is only an encounter if the DM decides it is an encounter, because there is no RAW definition of an encounter, so you have to rely on DMs judgment for what is or is not an encounter.

Which is exactly the same problem as before. The Factotum is so poorly written that it is effectively undefined when he gains IP.

[Emperor Tippy]

So... You think that it is absolutely mandatory for everyone to have an entire binder for their character, and that anyone who doesn't is "bad at bookkeeping?"
It should be, yes.


Do you not get that this is not an available option to most people? Most people do not have the option to make binders of all the associated rules that their character will ever need including, apparently, entire copies of the PHB for when their character gets grappled or tripped by a monster, or casts any spell at them.
Have a computer and printer? Then you are just fine. Should a wizard have all of the grapple rules sitting in their binder? No, not unless they are constantly using them. Should a grapple based fighter? Yes, because they are constantly using them; just like a wizard should keep the full text of every spell in his spell book in his binder.


Even those who theoretically could might not want to because they don't want to put hours of out of game effort into D&D before they play. There are entire subsets of players who don't play summoners or polymorphers because they don't want to deal with the extra bookkeeping, and you are saying that those people should do more bookkeeping than is required to play characters they won't play because of bookkeeping just to play in any games at all.
*shrug*
Not my problem or the systems problem. D&D is not a quick game to play. It never has been. If you aren't willing to sit down and put three to four hours into creating a character (who will often see a year or more worth of play time) then why are you playing D&D of all things? Besides, you will more than make up the time you spent in the time saved when playing.

And if your character grows organically (made at level 1 or 2, levels up through play) then the book work is even more minimal.


You didn't say, "I use Disjunction in my games." You said "I use Disjunction in my games, and everyone ever should use it in theirs."
If you claim a problem with the game system and that problem only exists because you are unwilling to use the system provided solution then I have every right to point out the stupidity involved in that line of thought.


It is a problem with your argument that everyone should use Disjunction. If you are going to say that other people should use Disjunction in their game, reasons why it is impractical to them are in fact problems with your argument.
No, they aren't problems with my argument. This thread is about the 3.5 system and rules. A valid complaint could be that the system requires too much book keeping, any complaint that can be resolved by using the systems rules exactly as stated and intended is an invalid complaint.


Except that is only an encounter if the DM decides it is an encounter, because there is no RAW definition of an encounter, so you have to rely on DMs judgment for what is or is not an encounter.

Which is exactly the same problem as before. The Factotum is so poorly written that it is effectively undefined when he gains IP.

Which is why I said 2 PC's. The DM has no say. If combat starts then it is an encounter per the RAW. When combat ceases and the conflict is resolved then the encounter is over per the RAW. That the encounter was no threat is irrelevant except in that you get no XP for completing the encounter.

Two PC's have a fist fight for two rounds dealing only non lethal damage? That's an encounter per the RAW.

[Beheld]

Have a computer and printer?

No I don't.


Not my problem or the systems problem.

Yes, it is the systems problem that you cannot cast Disjunction unless you own a Printer. That is in fact the systems problem, because the system did not come with a Printer.


If you claim a problem with the game system and that problem only exists because you are unwilling to use the system provided solution then I have every right to point out the stupidity involved in that line of thought.

No, if there is a problem that exists in the system that can only be fixed by adding hours of bookkeeping for each person at the table and access to technology that is not readily available that is a problem with the system.

If a Table Top Role Playing Game has a problem that slows the game to a crashing halt when someone casts a spell unless they have access to a computer that is a problem with the system.


No, they aren't problems with my argument. This thread is about the 3.5 system and rules. A valid complaint could be that the system requires too much book keeping,

Another valid complaint would be that not every aspect of the system requires too much bookkeeping, but some aspects of the system do, such as the spell Disjunction, or summoning, or calling, or polymorphing. Which is the complaint I am making, which is a valid complaint.


Which is why I said 2 PC's. The DM has no say. If combat starts then it is an encounter per the RAW. When combat ceases and the conflict is resolved then the encounter is over per the RAW. That the encounter was no threat is irrelevant except in that you get no XP for completing the encounter.

Two PC's have a fist fight for two rounds dealing only non lethal damage? That's an encounter per the RAW.

No, that is not an encounter per RAW. It does not matter if two PCs fight. There is no RAW anywhere in the rules that states "any time two creatures fight it is an encounter."

Because there is no definition of encounter anywhere in the rules. So when two PCs fight, it does not trigger an encounter unless the DM decides it does by Rule Zero.

Because by the RAW, Factotums never gain IP, because there is no RAW definition of Encounter.

[Kudaku]

In all fairness, Disjunction is a solution to the "buffed to the gills"-issue at high levels. It's just not a very elegant solution.

A bit like opening a can of beans with a crowbar. Sure, you'll get the can open but it'll take a while and odds are it'll get messy before you reach your goal.

[Amphetryon]

In all fairness, Disjunction is a solution to the "buffed to the gills"-issue at high levels. It's just not a very elegant solution.

A bit like opening a can of beans with a crowbar. Sure, you'll get the can open but it'll take a while and odds are it'll get messy before you reach your goal.

In my experience, it's more elegant/commonly seen than Craft Contingent Spell, to be fair. That's almost always banned in games I see.

Disclaimer: I respect Tippy's opinion and play-style just fine. I've just never been in a game as high-powered or permissive as he apparently considers his group's baseline. Different strokes, and so forth.

[The Boz]

The problem isn't lack of options, as Emperor Tippy already demonstrated. The problem is lack of non-nuclear options. Disjunction is like using a hydrogen bomb on a party. No matter how mature, no player will like it used against him. No matter how well prepared, no game will keep the pace when the spell is cast.
At higher levels, DnD becomes rocket tag with atomic weapons.

[Emperor Tippy]

The problem isn't lack of options, as Emperor Tippy already demonstrated. The problem is lack of non-nuclear options. Disjunction is like using a hydrogen bomb on a party. No matter how mature, no player will like it used against him. No matter how well prepared, no game will keep the pace when the spell is cast.
At higher levels, DnD becomes rocket tag with atomic weapons.

I don't mind Disjunction being cast at all. It's only a problem when DM's refuse to let you regain WBL using "cheap" tricks.

Throw Disjunctions around like candy by all means, but also throw Wish abuse around to get back up to WBL without a problem.

[The Boz]

But that's also a problem. Wishporting a fighter next to the bigbad so he can practically oneshot the severely nerfed weakling before he gets to act? Unepic.
At higher levels, it stops being high or epic fantasy or something like that... it just becomes erratic, unstable, wild... Tippyverse.

[Eldariel]

It stopped making money, so they had to write a new edition. Basic capitalism. It happens in D&D every 6 to10 years.

This is actually not entirely accurate. 3.5 is selling extremely well in the second hand market and Paizo's "reprints" are functioning superbly too. This is so true that WoTC even plans on reprinting 3.5 Core. From what I understand, the last 3.5 books had great sales too and there was still plenty of ground to cover (no "Book of Goblinoids" was ever released for example).

[jindra34]

Throw Disjunctions around like candy by all means, but also throw Wish abuse around to get back up to WBL without a problem.

Yes because the theoretical ability to abuse a powerful option makes something disruptive to the new standards of the game perfectly reasonable.

Or WotC was just idiotic and failed to understand the implications and ramifications of what they wrote.

[Emperor Tippy]

Or WotC was just idiotic and failed to understand the implications and ramifications of what they wrote.

I never said otherwise. That doesn't change the fact that the system does (unintentionally) work just fine in the instance in question.

[Trunamer]

Also, grappling is very complicated and difficult to master. I don't like how complex turning is, but that's likely a personal thing.
Maybe it is a personal thing, but I happen to agree. It's one of TSR's subsystems that survived the d20 purge, and I don't know how. :smallconfused:

To this day, I can't remember how 3.x TU works without cracking open the PHB.

[Starbuck_II]

Maybe it is a personal thing, but I happen to agree. It's one of TSR's subsystems that survived the d20 purge, and I don't know how. :smallconfused:

To this day, I can't remember how 3.x TU works without cracking open the PHB.

I can.
Turn has two variables:
Turning Check itself and turning damage.
Turning Check is to see highest undead possible to turn: 1d20+ cha (with chance of turning level being -4 or +4, the actual numbers for +4 or -4 are hard to remember though)
Turn Damage: how many undead are turned: 2d6 + cha + level, closest affected first.
Oh and if your turning level is double HD of creature, it is destroyed not just turned.

[The Viscount]

I always have to check that accursed chart for maximum affected HD.

[Beheld]

To this day, I can't remember how 3.x TU works without cracking open the PHB.

The answer is badly.

It simultaneously breaks the game by being too powerful, in that a low level Cleric can create an infinite Shadow army/Wight army, and too weak, in that it is basically useless against high level undead enemies.

It also works against the things it really shouldn't, like Liches. And not at all against things it should, big dumb pile of hitpoint zombies.

So yes. Badly.

[shadow_archmagi]

Problems with 3.5: Widely varying power levels, no matter what you're talking about. It's a game that includes wizards and monks, arcane thesis and toughness, use rope and use magical device. While it would theoretically be fine for a game to support multiple playstyles, they aren't marked as such and clearly weren't made with something like the tier system in mind- The devs just genuinely thought that psions and soulknives were on par.

Some skills peak out while others require constant investment- Either way, it's rarely worth it to invest any resource beyond skill points. Skill focus is something of a joke feat.

Feats and class features play off each other to make specialization almost inevitable.

[Trunamer]

The answer is badly.
No kidding!

I like the TU variant from Complete Divine; I can remember it without looking it up, and while a high level cleric may have better things to do with his standard actions*, the variant actually does what it says on the tin regardless of undead HD.

*Or maybe not -- the way the save DC scales is pretty sweet!

[Shaynythyryas]

I personnaly strongly dislike the action economy.

A full BAB class can either not move at all and TRY to make 4 attacks, or move one step away, potentially give an AoO and then TRY to make a single attack.

In the meantime, a mage can move, search his component sachel, find the one item he needs, and then cast a spell.

Then there's the whole swift action thing : you can have this by spending an immediate action, but can do only one and you can't even replace a standard or move action by a swift action.

Plus, there's too many ways to abuse and break it.

Which leads me to my second point : Psionics.

Don't get me wrong, I LOVE psionics, and I personally find manifesting way more interesting than spellcasting, but I won't discuss it here. What I mean to say, however, is that the way Psionics are written (particulary Complete Psi) open ways too much cheese potential.
Maybe the writters thought that players and DMs would be mature enough to know when to stop when it tends from cheese to completely broken.
In the end, the way psionics are deliberaletely disctintly described AND their massive cheese potential only leads to a general dislike and almost fear of psionics mechanics.

[Emmerask]

In the meantime, a mage can move, search his component sachel, find the one item he needs, and then cast a spell.

Very true, especially considering that the pouch (by raw) has an infinite number of components in it (somehow) ^^

[Arbane]

For example, one of the most common complaints about high level play is that everyone is buffed so much that combat becomes mostly pointless. Well there is a 9th level spell right there in core called Disjunction which will auto strip an entire party of buffs with one standard action. Most groups refuse to use it though.

Same with bitching about things like nested demiplanes and it being impossible to reach a high level caster to kill them. A single Wish will drop the entire party right next to that enemy caster regardless of any defenses that he might have. Wish in a high level fighter to the square right next to the enemy caster which triggers his Craft Contingent Disjunction to strip all buffs followed by his Craft Contingent Greater Celerity to ensure he gets to act followed by a full attack with a Thinaun weapon.

That little combo will kill virtually any caster with very little chance of failure.

There are very few things in 3.5 that don't have counters, bypasses, or work around's. Most people just don't think of them or refuse to use them for whatever reason.

I can't help thinking that this sort of thing is a cure worse than the disease.

My own contribution: The Improved Trip/Sunder/Grapple/Whatever feats, as the rules make it painfully clear that if you don't have the feats, you are NOT supposed to try doing anything in melee more interesting than sword the enemy in their hitpoints.


We all know the movies. Which games do that?

This is not an example of "What Didn't 3.x Get Right", but an example of "What 3.x Did Right But Could Be Even Better". 3.x is much more dynamic than most RPGs than came before -- just plain standing there and slugging it out without bothering to move at all is the "usual" mechanics.

Off the top of my head: Feng Shui, Exalted, Legend of the Wulin are all big on high-mobility battles. GURPS and other tactical games give you bonuses if you manage to blindside an enemy, too.

Another gripe: the skill system. It actively punishes anyone with the gall to make a character with a day-job, or something as inherently WRONG as a Fighter who can Spot his hand in front of his face.

[Barsoom]

In broad strokes, 3.x didn't get right the balance between spellcasters and mundanes, by overvaluing full BAB and armor and undervaluing the ability to tell the laws of physics to sit down and shut up.

On a more local scale, the Diplomacy skill as it's written is just terrible, and Fighter/Paladin/Monk should have never existed, there should have been ToB classes from the beginning.

[Starbuck_II]

In broad strokes, 3.x didn't get right the balance between spellcasters and mundanes, by overvaluing full BAB and armor and undervaluing the ability to tell the laws of physics to sit down and shut up.

On a more local scale, the Diplomacy skill as it's written is just terrible, and Fighter/Paladin/Monk should have never existed, there should have been ToB classes from the beginning.

To be fair, Fighter/Paladin/Monk were from 2E so they couldn't not have existed at least in 3.0.
3.5 they could have done more, but they hesitated for some reason. Till Complete Adventurer then they started making better classes that pushed the limits (CW was still in old thinking).

[Barsoom]

To be fair, Fighter/Paladin/Monk were from 2E so they couldn't not have existed at least in 3.0.
3.5 they could have done more, but they hesitated for some reason. Till Complete Adventurer then they started making better classes that pushed the limits (CW was still in old thinking).What I meant is, there could have been a class named Fighter, but it should have been mechanically a Warblade. And so on.

[Trunamer]

What I meant is, there could have been a class named Fighter, but it should have been mechanically a Warblade. And so on.
It worked wonders for 4e. :smallsmile:

[awa]

something that i personally started noticing in my last game is the numbers get to high.

If your trying to run a high fantasy lord of the rings type game where you fight through a horde of mooks then fight the boss it doesn't work the mooks are either to weak to meaningful affect the party and just act as a speed bump that maybe wastes some spells if the pcs get bored and try and hurry it up or the boss is going to hit them with every attack.
Take a fire giant tribe 12-30 hell hounds are not going to threaten a party who can take down a 7th level fire giant cleric.

mohrg hang out with zombies

Formian queens are cr 17 workers are cr 1/2
the way the game is run hordes of weak enemies are only a threat to the

Its probably a carry over from earlier edition, but in second edition with much lower numbers both to hit and ac (even basic humanoids like orcs or goblins could be a threat to high level parties.)

[russdm]

*shrug*
Not my problem or the systems problem. D&D is not a quick game to play. It never has been. If you aren't willing to sit down and put three to four hours into creating a character (who will often see a year or more worth of play time) then why are you playing D&D of all things? Besides, you will more than make up the time you spent in the time saved when playing.

And if your character grows organically (made at level 1 or 2, levels up through play) then the book work is even more minimal.

I take offense at this point of yours. I have rarely had characters survive more than a few weeks unless i deliberately chose to retire them or stopped playing them.

[TuggyNE]

I take offense at this point of yours. I have rarely had characters survive more than a few weeks unless i deliberately chose to retire them or stopped playing them.

That's … a little unusual, I think; anecdotal evidence suggests that quite a lot of people do expect their characters to survive quite a while (possibly with resurrections). So I'm not sure why you'd take offense at assuming that broad tendency?

[Starbuck_II]

something that i personally started noticing in my last game is the numbers get to high.

If your trying to run a high fantasy lord of the rings type game where you fight through a horde of mooks then fight the boss it doesn't work the mooks are either to weak to meaningful affect the party and just act as a speed bump that maybe wastes some spells if the pcs get bored and try and hurry it up or the boss is going to hit them with every attack.
Take a fire giant tribe 12-30 hell hounds are not going to threaten a party who can take down a 7th level fire giant cleric.



4E did fine with Minion rules. Minions have level appropriate hit rates, dam is close to minimum (usually 1/2 of average creature) so together they damage really well.
They do get wasted by spells, but then again they are feared by melee due to overwhelming numbers. Then again 4E had crowd hitting powers to even it out.

[Jeff the Green]

CR's really screwed up. In particular, the rules for adding associated vs. non-associated class levels. For example, a level 20 human cleric is CR 20. A fire giant is CR 10. To make a fire giant CR 20, you'd need to add 18 levels of cleric. That's a total of 33 hitdie, the same 9ths as the human, and massive racial bonuses to Strength, Constitution, and Wisdom

(If you think cleric actually is associated with fire giant, replace cleric with wizard to get a gish.)

[Philistine]

CR's really screwed up. In particular, the rules for adding associated vs. non-associated class levels. For example, a level 20 human cleric is CR 20. A fire giant is CR 10. To make a fire giant CR 20, you'd need to add 18 levels of cleric. That's a total of 33 hitdie, the same 9ths as the human, and massive racial bonuses to Strength, Constitution, and Wisdom

(If you think cleric actually is associated with fire giant, replace cleric with wizard to get a gish.)

Depends on who you believe. If you fall in with Monte Cook's "Ivory Tower Design" blog, or with some of the "Magic is SUPPOSED to be that much better" crowd, then the CR system isn't merely "screwed up" - the entire notion of "CR" as presented is deliberately and intentionally misleading.

[awa]

in regards to 4th eddtion i think they had the right idea (monster built for specific roles such as mook monsters) although from what i understand the execution was somewhat lacking.

[Eldariel]

in regards to 4th eddtion i think they had the right idea (monster built for specific roles such as mook monsters) although from what i understand the execution was somewhat lacking.

Eh. I don't really like having monsters specialized in roles; certainly DM can figure out which monsters to use in which roles for that particular scenario. There are, after all, situations where Orcs make perfect sense as the big bads and others where they serve as thralls to a demon or whatever.

[awa]

the problem with that is take a zombie the human zombie in most media examples the basic shambling zombie is best used in massive hordes but the zombie template is horrible for this zombies have relatively low accuracy and relatively high durability. this means that most fights against several zombies are usually pretty boring by level 2 or 3 the zombie is not accurate enough to hit pcs but the pcs have to hit the zombies several times each to bring one down (more if they are relying on sneak attack).

an ogre magic a size large magic giant feels like it should be a major boss monster but it's hp is extremely low for it's cr so it will die way to fast to be satisfying once they actually get a chance to whack it.

Orcs make good mooks fairly low hp so they get killed quickly but good damage and accuracy allowing them to challenge mid level pcs. of course they are lousy as level 1 enemies because with an average damage of 9 they have a good chance of dropping most pcs with a single hit.

in this regards 4th edition had the right idea an orc built to be a big bad and an orc built to be a mook serving demons rather then one monster being shoved into both roles with no changes to the stats or mechanics. (note i'm not counting monsters built by the dm that is a different matter entirely and completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. once you give the monster class levels its not a standard orc any more)

[Big Fau]

in regards to 4th eddtion i think they had the right idea (monster built for specific roles such as mook monsters) although from what i understand the execution was somewhat lacking.

The first 2 MMs had a problem with enemy roles. Enemies designed in the twilight of 4E's lifespan were typically more in-line with their stated role. Not getting any further into it because this topic is about 3.X.

I will say the one thing I find that could have been significantly better is magic items. I don't like magic items that exist specifically to enhance your stats (a +6 enhancement bonus to Con is incredibly useful, but that's only because the game is balanced around the idea of the players having these items). Legacy Items were a step in the right direction, but the execution was terrible and the developers were real sticklers for throwing in random stat buffs.

I understand that it is largely a legacy thing (pun not intended), seeing as D&D pretty much codified the concept of +X items, but would it have been so hard to throw special abilities on those items? They did in the MiC (that item that buffs Strength and has a minor special ability, I can't recall the name).

[cerin616]

Ah. I misread that. To be fair, it was pretty oddly punctuated. Anyway, the existence of a worse thing doesn't make a bad thing stop being bad.

I dont think he said that either. He just said that It can be fixed. Its possible.

As for my opinion, the fact that magic is broken over powered. It can do literally anything. At high levels, a decent mage makes the rest of the party feel like they are only there to keep him alive if he happens to get trapped with his pants down in a sudden AMF.

Also, the truenamer is possibly the single coolest magic system they put in this game. It is depressing how its so ineffective, because with some tweaking it could be the best thing ever.

[Arbane]

Depends on who you believe. If you fall in with Monte Cook's "Ivory Tower Design" blog, or with some of the "Magic is SUPPOSED to be that much better" crowd, then the CR system isn't merely "screwed up" - the entire notion of "CR" as presented is deliberately and intentionally misleading.

Yep. A level 20 Commoner and a level 20 Cleric are 'supposed' to be 'equal' - that ain't right.

(If commoner class is supposed to be vastly inferior to PC classes, why not just have it stick to _lower levels_?)

[mcbobbo]

The one thing they really got wrong was deciding to reward 'rules mastery' and consumption of splat books.

I think an easy-ish fix would be to figure out a budget for constructing class features, feats, etc and publish the 'point value' of the given thing. Sort of like Weight Watchers for RPGs. That way you can tell that Toughness sucks, because it's only worth one point. Improved Feat of Awesomeness scores seven, etc.

But that would have defeated the entire business model, so I am not too surprised to see that's not how it went.

As for the idea that economic viability had anything to do with the creation of 4e, I would bring your attention to the OGL. Particularly note the licensing differences between 3.5 and 4e. In that difference, the simplest explanation of WotCs motives will be laid bare.

[jindra34]

Yep. A level 20 Commoner and a level 20 Cleric are 'supposed' to be 'equal' - that ain't right.

Well not quite EQUAL. The commoner being an NPC class will result in a CR of 19 for humans. Versus the 20 for Cleric on humans. So close but not precisely equal.

[Kelb_Panthera]

@ Tippy and Beheld:

ToB does, in fact, have the raw for encounters. It's on page 40. An encounter is over if 1 minute passes without an attack being made by the party or any enemies. Mind, that's an attack, not an attack roll.

It's given in the context of regaining maneuvers after an encounter but it's the only place in the RAW where what constitutes an encounter is even vaguely defined.

[Beheld]

@ Tippy and Beheld:

ToB does, in fact, have the raw for encounters. It's on page 40. An encounter is over if 1 minute passes without an attack being made by the party or any enemies. Mind, that's an attack, not an attack roll.

It's given in the context of regaining maneuvers after an encounter but it's the only place in the RAW where what constitutes an encounter is even vaguely defined.

No, what the ToB section says is that you can recover your manuevers at the end of an encounter, and that "In the case of a long, drawn-out series of fights, or if an adept is out of combat entirely, assume that if a character makes no attacks of any kind, initiates no new maneuvers, and is not targeted by any enemy attacks for 1 full minute, he can recover all expended maneuvers."

Which says absolutely nothing about what constitutes an encounter. It does not say that an encounter starts when you perform any of those actions, only that when you don't perform them an encounter ends. One of those actions is initiate a maneuver. That section does not tell you that any time a Swordsage teleports 5ft an encounter started. It is still completely undefined what starts an encounter.

[Trunamer]

The first 2 MMs had a problem with enemy roles. Enemies designed in the twilight of 4E's lifespan were typically more in-line with their stated role. Not getting any further into it because this topic is about 3.X.
For what it's worth, I've gotten what I needed out of this thread, so derail away. :smallsmile:

I can't speak of early 4e monsters firsthand, but my DM uses the later monster books because apparently they have a few subtle improvements that add up to better monsters.


4E did fine with Minion rules. Minions have level appropriate hit rates, dam is close to minimum (usually 1/2 of average creature) so together they damage really well.
They do get wasted by spells, but then again they are feared by melee due to overwhelming numbers. Then again 4E had crowd hitting powers to even it out.
Yeah, monster castes (minion, standard, elite, solo) are one of 4e's great innovations. You can apparently optimize to really hose certain castes in ways the devs probably didn't intend, but I agree it's still better than using the same orc statblock for 'low-level dungeon threat' and 'high-level dungeon mook.'