Idle Thought Exercise: Miracle Cure to Balance 3.5?

[Demidos]

Yes yes, so the title is a lie. So sue me. Well, actually, I would prefer you didn't. It tends to be such a hassle. But I digress. 3.5 is agreed to be a generally near-impossible system to fix, at least without serious overhaul. Despite that, I was chatting with some friends, and came to what to seemed to me as a fairly valid system. It would rather screw with the prices of magic items and the validity of Prestige classes, but apart from that, i'm curious as to the Playground's thoughts on how balanced this would be.

3 Points:

-- Partial Gestalt is in Effect (explained in spoiler)

T3 can gestalt with NPC (Expert, Commoner, Noble, Warrior) classes
T4 can gestalt with any T5 or T6

T1/T2 gain no benefit.


--All current T1/T2 fullcasters are reduced to bardic casting progression (reaching a maximum of 6th level spells). Spontaneous casters receive an extra spell of the appropriate level every time they reach a new spellcasting level.

--Natural Spell is disallowed.




With those three points, low tiers are provided a significant boost in power, tier 3 is provided a minor boost in power, and the top two tiers suffer significant penalties. While, yes, it still allows the cleric to cast streamers on the poor unfortunate rogue, at least with his boosted hp, as well as considering the later level that this would kick in at, give him a chance. (The wizard can fend for himself just fine.)

Optional rules:

On the subject of removing game-breaking features -- The Test of Spite Banlist (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=113644) (bottom of the second post)
On the subject of making casters stronger, if they became too weak --
-Add in 7th, 8th, and 9th level spell slots for the sole purpose of metamagic, as per the spoiler below

At 17th level, gain one 7th level slot.
At 18th level, gain one 8th level slot, and an additional 7th.
At 19th, gain one 9th, and an additional 8th and 7th level slot.
At 20th, gain an additional 9th, 8th, and 7th.

If you have a high enough ability modifier, you gain bonus slots as usual.

-Alternately, allow 7th level casting of spells, as noted in the FAQ below.
On the subject of druids, if they are still seen as too strong --
Make all druids aspect druids (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/classFeatureVariants.htm). If further nerfing is required, simply remove the animal companion.




Possible questions (with replies!):[LIST]
Q: No 7th, 8th, 9th level spells?

A: A little sad, but there are hundreds if not thousands of 6th level and lower spells accessible online. (Plus the side bonus of fixing epic casting! Just hand out 7/8/9th level spells!) Even with the limit, casters should still be pretty strong.

Q: What if casters are too weak? Especially fixed list casters?

A: Unlikely, but let them choose to increase their choice of HD, saves, or attack bonus (aka, just rule them T3 and allow them to partial gestalt). Alternately, let fixed list/T2 casters continue the logical progression on the bard table (gaining a new spell level every three levels, that is to say, give them 7th level spells at 19th).

Q: What about the full-casters not of tier 1 or 2?

A: They're already weak enough to be put in those tiers, so I don't really see how this will affect the game. It makes it more thematically logical as well -- full casters not of the top two tiers generally focus on a single subset of magic. It makes sense that they are better at it than those who are more generalized, like a wizard.





Its always seemed rather logical to me -- the bard is the least powerful of the caster core classes. Why not simply reduce the other classes to the bard's level and call it a day? Other classes have better lists (wizards, sorcerers, clerics) of spells to pick from, while others have equivalent class features (druid).


It seems to make sense to me, but then again, its far past the time I should be asleep, so that means little. Thoughts, suggestions, advice, help? Any of it would be appreciated.

[Qwertystop]

Seems to me if you drop the progressions that much it might go a bit too far. The classes that have that by default have other features - I'm not sure the lists are enough better to keep up with that.

[Lord Vukodlak]

Good players who aren't obsessed with making optimized spell casters.

[Qwertystop]

Seems to me if you drop the progressions that much it might go a bit too far. The classes that have that by default have other features - I'm not sure the lists are enough better to keep up with that.

Rephrasing due to unclarity: Seems it might drop them below what seems to be the end-goal of T3.

[Demidos]

Good players who aren't obsessed with making optimized spell casters.


Not sure I understand the context here.


Rephrasing due to unclarity: Seems it might drop them below what seems to be the end-goal of T3.

Perhaps. But 6th level is the level lots of the higher power stuff comes online (disintegrate, planar binding, continency, flesh to stone.) etc. If you still feel the casters are too weak, does the "adding 7th level spells" bit help?

[Qwertystop]

Not sure I understand the context here.



Perhaps. But 6th level is the level lots of the higher power stuff comes online (disintegrate, planar binding, continency, flesh to stone.) etc. If you still feel the casters are too weak, does the "adding 7th level spells" bit help?

I'm not sure... thing is I just don't think it should feel like Bards are better than Wizards - the people who devote their lives to learning magic should be better at it than Bards.

Maybe give them 7ths, maybe just give them more spells per day.

[Novawurmson]

Maybe give them 7ths

Or 7th (maybe even 8th) level spell slots but not spells. Metamagic screams "super fancy arcanist" to me.

[Qwertystop]

Or 7th (maybe even 8th) level spell slots but not spells. Metamagic screams "super fancy arcanist" to me.

Yes. This is it, this is the way to do it, this is something to limit them to 6th level spells without making them flatly worse than casters with actual noncasting class features.

So much this.

[Drachasor]

This makes Wizards and Sorcerers pretty awful. No higher level spells, slow progression, no class abilities. Compare them to a Bard and they don't look good. Now the Bard can also add another class to their mix and be even stronger.

I'd consider 3/4 BAB on all 1/2 BAB classes. D4 hd -> d6 hd, D6 hd -> d8, the rest remain the same.

Eliminating higher level spells but keeping slots MIGHT work, but you'd have to guarantee metamagic feats to make those slots useful.

Lastly, consider changing the DC on spells to 10 + 1/2 Caster Level + Ability-Mod.

But this still doesn't get rid of save-or-dies and a lot of other problems, honestly. I don't think there is a brute-force method to fix spells.

[Grod_The_Giant]

I would strongly recommend against cutting the T1 casters off at 6th level, but leaving the T3 casters at 9th. Be consistent across the board, methinks.

(Also, I might go up to 7ths)

You should give former-9th-level-casters more spells/day-- if only to reduce the urge for 15 minute workdays. The bard has plenty to do beyond casting spells, a wizard...not so much.


And if you're dropping the full casters that much, I wouldn't allow any gestalt with T3 classes-- particularly not when you're offering Adepts, which are normally T4, and now aren't even that far behind a full caster. T4+T5 seems pretty solid, though. Warlock//Ninja, anyone?

[Phelix-Mu]

Lastly, consider changing the DC on spells to 10 + 1/2 Caster Level + Ability-Mod.


Wait. Isn't this a more aggressive DC ramp up than the current regime? Why would we want to make it worse? I don't see where the most consistently SAD classes in the game need a leg up, beyond maybe a third level to Spell Focus, or reintroducing the Spell Power feats from 3.0. Especially as the OP's general point is to nerf high-tier casters. With methods of CL optimization still on the table, using CL in the DC calculation seems like a recipe for disaster.

I'd also avoid allowing T3 to gestalt with Adept, which is already radically better than the other NPC classes.

I've seen a similar fix bandied about the PbP forums and possibly constituting some fairly common houserules to fix T5 (not sure about T4), particularly fighter and monk.

Finally, I do like the idea of spell slots of levels 7, 8, and maybe 9 just for metamagicking. It's a solid idea, and avoids some uneven power-ramping that the fix might otherwise introduce. I don't know how you'd add these slots without deviating from the bard spell progression, but I'm sure one could tinker with the tables a bit.

And, this time I'm almost done for sure, but I think this fix somewhat ignores psionics. Psion is the one of note, and eliminating the highest level powers will help, but most of the punch comes from augmenting stuff, and there's plenty of boom boom before 7th level powers. Giving arcane/divine casters higher spell slots for metamagic might even it out some, but now it feels like most of the classes will end up high T3, but casters will probably only be brought down to a lower part of T2. Still, that gap is much more manageable than the current system.

[Darth Stabber]

The proposed fix doesn't nerf druid as much as you might think. You make one of it's three pillars wobbly, but it still leaves the two reasons why they don't often take full casting PRCs intact. Wild shape and animal companion keep them pretty well buoyed, they maybe weaker, but they really don't fall that far.

Personally I just forbid t1 and t2 classes from players unless they lose a fair number of caster levels (either multiclassing or partial progression PRCs), the minimum of which is delaying 9's till lvl 20, and having lost a minimum of one caster level by 10. I also let most of the t5 and t6 classes gestalt with other t5 and t6 classes (minimum of 5 levels, so a dip is not gestaltable). Newbs get an exception on the t1-2 rule, unless they make me regret it. It's loosely based off the system jaronK suggested in his now famous tier articles. The group I'm running currently has been my case study in this system, and so far it has worked well, they are at level 12 and other than dread necromancer rendering undead encounters worse than trivial, they are fairly well balanced, and they all contribute roughly evenly (though the necromancer maybe moreso, mostly due to the fact that she's turned her part of the game into pokemon {she specializes in ghost and dark types}). I haven't had anyone take the gestalt option, but the non-newb psion/uncarnate seems sufficiently nerfed, and the newb sorcerer is a newb. It requires less rewritting than the OP's system, but operates on a similar principle (and I very easy to implement). Keeping in mind that my player are also my frat brothers (even the girls, yay coed frats), there is an obvious uncontrolled variable in my experiment, but hopefully someone else can try it to get some more "scientific" results.

[Jack_Simth]

Not sure I understand the context here.It's the answer to the question posed in the thread title. The miracle cure for 3.5 balance is to play with people who won't abuse it.

[navar100]

It's not a system that needs fixing. If you absolutely must overhaul it or whack it with the banhammer, you should admit to yourself you just hate 3E already and play some other system altogether. Really, there are playing groups where players play wizards, clerics, and druids alongside fighters, monks, and paladins and everyone gets along quite fine. Everyone contributes. No one "wins" D&D, and no one "loses" D&D either.

We like our chocolate ice cream. Maybe you just prefer strawberry.

[Kuulvheysoon]

Enforce shapeshift druid (PHB2).

And with these rules, I'd definitely go Adept//Crusader. The Adept's spell list is surprisingly versatile.

[The Trickster]

It's the answer to the question posed in the thread title. The miracle cure for 3.5 balance is to play with people who won't abuse it.

Well, that is certainly part of the problem. But it's not just abusing "over-powered" classes, but it's the problems that the "lower-powered" classes have. I wouldn't call casting Fly as abuse, but just that spell alone can give a wizard an advantage over a"weaker" class, an advantage that the "weaker" characerer cannot overcome until later levels. (This is just one example, of course.)

Edit: My grammer sucks.

[Flickerdart]

There are plenty of spells level 6 and under that crack the game wide open. Meanwhile, the low tiers still don't get to do anything useful. This solves nothing, but at least it doesn't make the game very much worse than some other "easy" fixes I've seen.

[Darth Stabber]

It's not a system that needs fixing. If you absolutely must overhaul it or whack it with the banhammer, you should admit to yourself you just hate 3E already and play some other system altogether. Really, there are playing groups where players play wizards, clerics, and druids alongside fighters, monks, and paladins and everyone gets along quite fine. Everyone contributes. No one "wins" D&D, and no one "loses" D&D either.

We like our chocolate ice cream. Maybe you just prefer strawberry.

Maybe some of prefer to beat chocolate until it tastes like strawberry. The thing about 3.x D&D is that the system is VERY common, legally free online, has a huge amount of player generated support, and lends itself well to homebrewing. The OGL is a banner calling those who like to tear things apart to see how they work and then put them back together in a manner that suits them. It was WotC's master stroke, and now the biggest thorn in their side.

[eggynack]

It's not a system that needs fixing. If you absolutely must overhaul it or whack it with the banhammer, you should admit to yourself you just hate 3E already and play some other system altogether. Really, there are playing groups where players play wizards, clerics, and druids alongside fighters, monks, and paladins and everyone gets along quite fine. Everyone contributes. No one "wins" D&D, and no one "loses" D&D either.

We like our chocolate ice cream. Maybe you just prefer strawberry.
So, you're saying that it's impossible to think the system is fun to use, and not want to play a game with both monks and druids? I'm asking, because I am absolutely in that boat. There's a lot of really good stuff in the system, but not everyone needs to use every part of it to use some parts of it. You can easily play a game made up of only tier 3's, use a massive pile of the game's best parts, and not have particularly unequal party members. That's the best solution, I think. Similarly, you can have a game made up of only tier 1 and 2's, use a massive pile of extremely powerful stuff, and not have particularly unequal party members. Double similarly, you can have a game made up of only low tiered members, have a group that needs to use their wits to get past most challenges, and not have particularly unequal party members. All of these groups are playing 3.5, and none of them have characters overshadowing other characters based on the class they chose. It's absolutely ridiculous to assert that a person needs to like every damn aspect of the system to want to play it.

[Spuddles]

This makes Wizards and Sorcerers pretty awful. No higher level spells, slow progression, no class abilities. Compare them to a Bard and they don't look good. Now the Bard can also add another class to their mix and be even stronger.

I'd consider 3/4 BAB on all 1/2 BAB classes. D4 hd -> d6 hd, D6 hd -> d8, the rest remain the same.

Eliminating higher level spells but keeping slots MIGHT work, but you'd have to guarantee metamagic feats to make those slots useful.

Lastly, consider changing the DC on spells to 10 + 1/2 Caster Level + Ability-Mod.

But this still doesn't get rid of save-or-dies and a lot of other problems, honestly. I don't think there is a brute-force method to fix spells.

Casters will still be awesome BFC spells, and they still get teleport, and planar binding is getting them Astral Projection and some other awesome stuff.

[MeiLeTeng]

It's not a system that needs fixing. If you absolutely must overhaul it or whack it with the banhammer, you should admit to yourself you just hate 3E already and play some other system altogether. Really, there are playing groups where players play wizards, clerics, and druids alongside fighters, monks, and paladins and everyone gets along quite fine. Everyone contributes. No one "wins" D&D, and no one "loses" D&D either.

We like our chocolate ice cream. Maybe you just prefer strawberry.

I see a lot of comments like this one whenever someone brings up a potential fix to the system, and I have to wonder, dude: what is your goal in talking about it?

I mean I have no plan to engage you on a discussion about whether the system does in fact need fixing, the fact is that that discussion in itself is at the heart of every single 30 page long argument people have over monks and wizards and tome of battle (unless they're complaining about fluff which I'm also definitely not getting into), and since they still happen it's clearly not a situation that is likely to resolve itself anytime soon. So that's fine, different flavors of ice cream, whatever. But like, here again is back to my point, this guy/gal has clearly chosen his/her side on the ice cream debate so why even bring it up? He's/She's (okay, I'm getting tired of typing that, sorry OP if you're a girl but I'm going to masculine pronouns) not trying to remove your ability to consume chocolate ice cream, he's just trying to change the flavor to something that suits his needs.

There's all sorts of reasons for him to do that, it's easier to change what you have than rewrite a complete system, maybe his players (as I've experienced in the past) only want to eat chocolate ice cream, but want to eat chocolate ice cream by name only, and if you gave them vanilla or strawberry ice cream and called it chocolate they'd be much more likely to be accepting of your delicious dairy dessert. Maybe he just likes engaging in thought exercises about hypothetical methods of changing the flavor of ice creams, but the point is I guess that none of it really affects you much. Like at this point you're basically walking into a person's kitchen and complaining about the ice cream that they're serving themselves and potential other guests because you like the ice cream you eat at home.

[Darth Stabber]

I think we may be taking the icecream metaphor a bit far (I apologize for extending myself).

[eggynack]

I think we may be taking the icecream metaphor a bit far (I apologize for extending myself).
Well, sometimes ice cream metaphors are like ice cream. You just keep adding more and more ice cream to the bowl, mixing in more and more flavors, and you discover that the ice cream based end result isn't as good as what you started with. Still, even if the pile of ice cream may have gotten too high, it's still ice cream, and you're still going to eat it. Ice cream is cool like that.

[buttcyst]

It's not a system that needs fixing. If you absolutely must overhaul it or whack it with the banhammer, you should admit to yourself you just hate 3E already and play some other system altogether. Really, there are playing groups where players play wizards, clerics, and druids alongside fighters, monks, and paladins and everyone gets along quite fine. Everyone contributes. No one "wins" D&D, and no one "loses" D&D either.

We like our chocolate ice cream. Maybe you just prefer strawberry.

that just kinda nailed it on the head, I DM a group right now that has a druid playing along side a monk and a fighter, nobody outshines anybody. I simply account for the gap and give them a challenge according to their capabilities, the melees have something to melee and the druid has something to druid, just takes a little creativity and that gap becomes less clear-cut. The system is just fine and any problems it has can't be "quick-fixed" away. If there was an official DnD overhaul to the 3.5 system that kept the same mechanics but made the changes necessary to "un-break" it, I would probably still try to incorporate as much from the current system as I possibly could, or try to merge the "new" into the "old" but probably just end up not changing it. 3.5 is only really broken if a DM doesn't account for the broken parts... game example, happened tonight, druid cast transmute rock to mud on my magical puzzle door just to find it protected by a spell mimicking illusory wall of force (DM spell). The party monk used abundant step and managed to get on the other side of it, but, now is stuck there with no light and no way back until the next day, he was given the answer to the riddle on the door, it was the first time he's used that ability in front of the party so they don't know what happened to him. The druid cast a divination and discovered the answer to the riddle on the door and is now contemplating with the fighter to make the 2 day journey to town and back in order to obtain the needed scrolls for the door ("knock" and "open", I know, lol... the riddle was "How does a wizard open a door?").

[eggynack]

that just kinda nailed it on the head, I DM a group right now that has a druid playing along side a monk and a fighter, nobody outshines anybody. I simply account for the gap and give them a challenge according to their capabilities, the melees have something to melee and the druid has something to druid, just takes a little creativity and that gap becomes less clear-cut. The system is just fine and any problems it has can't be "quick-fixed" away. If there was an official DnD overhaul to the 3.5 system that kept the same mechanics but made the changes necessary to "un-break" it, I would probably still try to incorporate as much from the current system as I possibly could, or try to merge the "new" into the "old" but probably just end up not changing it. 3.5 is only really broken if a DM doesn't account for the broken parts... game example, happened tonight, druid cast transmute rock to mud on my magical puzzle door just to find it protected by a spell mimicking illusory wall of force (DM spell). The party monk used abundant step and managed to get on the other side of it, but, now is stuck there with no light and no way back until the next day, he was given the answer to the riddle on the door, it was the first time he's used that ability in front of the party so they don't know what happened to him. The druid cast a divination and discovered the answer to the riddle on the door and is now contemplating with the fighter to make the 2 day journey to town and back in order to obtain the needed scrolls for the door ("knock" and "open", I know, lol... the riddle was "How does a wizard open a door?").
I don't really see how what you're saying right now is really meaningful. Just because you found a solution in your game, that doesn't mean that everyone is going to want to use the same one. It's entirely valid, and often necessary, to use fixes like the one the OP is proposing. The fact that it looks like this entire encounter was solved by casting adds some validity to what I'm saying, but that's possibly irrelevant. It is possible to do a quick fix for the game that removes balance issues, so you're just wrong about that. Playing entirely within a one or two tier range largely obviates balance problems,, and having a zero tier range goes even farther. There are ways to solve these problems, and yours is one, and the OP's is another. Whether the OP's fix is effective or not, well, that's what he came here to find out. I'm not entirely sure how a monk can coexist with a well played druid, but I know that it involves some restriction somewhere. Whether that restriction is systemic, DM constructed, or player constructed, that's up to the particular game.

Edit: Actually, now I'm all curious and junk. How does your anecdote demonstrate a party that uses both its casters and mundane folks to anywhere near equal extents? Your monk got trapped on the other side of a wall, while the druid solved the riddle, the wizard had the ability to bypass the door, and the druid could have easily gone to town to get the scroll. Wild shape is one of the better ways to cover long distances, and your druid is at level 9, so he has it. What did the fighter and monk do that the wizard and druid couldn't? What did the wizard and druid do that the monk and fighter could also do? This practically demonstrates the opposite of what you're saying.

[Drachasor]

Wait. Isn't this a more aggressive DC ramp up than the current regime? Why would we want to make it worse? I don't see where the most consistently SAD classes in the game need a leg up, beyond maybe a third level to Spell Focus, or reintroducing the Spell Power feats from 3.0. Especially as the OP's general point is to nerf high-tier casters. With methods of CL optimization still on the table, using CL in the DC calculation seems like a recipe for disaster.

Hmm, it might be a little much. However, for spells to remain relevant at higher levels, it's probably a good idea to have some sort of scaling system if you are reducing the max spell level. This also helps out Bards and other partial casters. Otherwise DC-based spells become fairly weak unless you really spend a lot of effort into them. Imho, there's something to be said for having DCs scale rather than spreading tons of feats and abilities around to use with them.

Hmm, good point on CL. Perhaps Character Level / 2 would be better (yeah, that helps casters who multi-class, but they need it anyhow).


I'd also avoid allowing T3 to gestalt with Adept, which is already radically better than the other NPC classes.

Good point. NPC classes should be treated as the tiers they are in...not specially. Though a weaker NPC caster might be nice to have as an option.


And, this time I'm almost done for sure, but I think this fix somewhat ignores psionics. Psion is the one of note, and eliminating the highest level powers will help, but most of the punch comes from augmenting stuff, and there's plenty of boom boom before 7th level powers. Giving arcane/divine casters higher spell slots for metamagic might even it out some, but now it feels like most of the classes will end up high T3, but casters will probably only be brought down to a lower part of T2. Still, that gap is much more manageable than the current system.

Heck, it might be better just to move traditional casters to a psionic system. I've heard it is better in general, though I've never had a DM that would allow them.


Casters will still be awesome BFC spells, and they still get teleport, and planar binding is getting them Astral Projection and some other awesome stuff.

It's a mixed bad, especially with worse DCs (and hence a strong encouragement to ignore DC spells at higher levels or to heavily min-max them -- I tend to not think that's a good thing).

Really, you can't fix spells without banning or heavily altering a bunch of them. That's the fundamental problem here. There's no quick-fix to T1/2. Well, I've actually heard there's something to be said for banning the PHB spells, but that seems like overkill. All fixes will be messy if you want to keep them around.

[eggynack]

I've done some thinking about the fix, and I think that the balance of it might be a little off. A wizard with bard progression is at approximately the power level of a bard, so giving bards additional power through gestalt doesn't seem necessary. You should maintain the nerf to casters, maintain the buff to low tier guys, and keep tier three normal as the balance point. There are some other things that I think are of note. Druids need some bonus nerfing on top of the other casters, because they're tier three even with no spells at all. Natural spell is a start, but that's all it is. It's weird that beguiler type casters are the only guys around that can access 9th's, though it might work out as a trade off of spell level for a bigger list. Clerics are probably the class that's hit the hardest by this stuff, because their list isn't as crazy as the wizard, and their class features aren't as good as the druid.

As has been noted, you should probably replace "NPC" with "tier six" if you keep the tier three's as is, because some NPC's are better than others. Notably, the adept is in tier four, the expert is in tier five, and the magewright is probably somewhere good, though I don't know their placement. Finally, you may want to consider altering the caster spell progression so that they get first level spells at first level. As is, they're basically completely worthless at that level, and it wouldn't unbalance your fix. Anyways, those are the main problems I came up with, though their limited nature makes this a workable fix. It seems to get everyone around tier three, which is a good place to put them.

[Cheiromancer]

Enforce shapeshift druid (PHB2).
Yes. Or other ACF's that replace the animal companion and wild shape. Or if they keep the animal companion let it be at half progression; let ranger have the AC at full.


Personally I just forbid t1 and t2 classes from players unless they lose a fair number of caster levels (either multiclassing or partial progression PRCs), the minimum of which is delaying 9's till lvl 20, and having lost a minimum of one caster level by 10. I also let most of the t5 and t6 classes gestalt with other t5 and t6 classes (minimum of 5 levels, so a dip is not gestaltable). Newbs get an exception on the t1-2 rule, unless they make me regret it.

This is excellent. The brevity of expression, ease of application and scope of application make this fix among the best I have seen. I especially like how it makes the partial progress PrC's viable choices. But could you clarify which t5 and t6 gestalt combos you do not allow? And what circumstances would disallow 9's at level 20?

[Jack_Simth]

Well, that is certainly part of the problem. But it's not just abusing "over-powered" classes, but it's the problems that the "lower-powered" classes have. I wouldn't call casting Fly as abuse, but just that spell alone can give a wizard an advantage over a"weaker" class, an advantage that the "weaker" characerer cannot overcome until later levels. (This is just one example, of course.)Depends on the game, the other players, and how it's used. The T-1's and T-2's have a much higher power ceiling than do the T-3's and below. If the Wizard casts Fly on himself, and uses it to stay away from the battlefield while in range of blasting spells, that can be abusive if the party as a whole isn't running in that power range and the DM doesn't adapt to the tactic. If the wizard casts Fly on the party rogue so that the rogue can get across the chasm and tie a rope so everyone can cross reasonably safely, that's group problem solving.

It's not specific power level that causes a problem, it's a power discrepancy inside of a party that causes a problem... and the T-1's and T-2's have a lower power floor than do the T-3's and T-4's (in addition to a higher power ceiling). In addition to knowing how to play a T-1 caster, the person who plays a T-1 caster needs to know how to play them responsibly, as well.

[mabriss lethe]

If you're going to allow partial gestalt, don't nerf the T1 and 2 casters spell progression. There's got to be a reward for not gestalting if it's an option on the table. Partial gestalt has the potential to bring most any character into t3 range, which are perfectly playable in a party with top Tier classes. Some of those class combinations would become significantly better than modified t1s.

On natural spell: I'd rather put some limitation on its use than ban it entirely. Maybe base a revised version on Turn attempts or something. The Druid only has X number of natural spell points and he has to burn one for every spell he casts while wildshaped.

One fix I add: Battle Blessing becomes available to all "half caster" classes (defined as those base classes that only grant up to level 4 spells with a modified caster level progression.)

[Talya]

3.5 is agreed to be a generally near-impossible system to fix, at least without serious overhaul.

No, it's really not.

There are a few issues with it if you have the wrong people playing, but they are all addressable within the published rules with strong DM adjudication.

Which isn't to say I'm not in favor of some houseruling on a few of the worst elements (I tend to go after the low tiers as opposed to bringing down the high tiers,) but 3.5 simply isn't nearly as unworkable as some people state.

[Spuddles]

No, it's really not.

There are a few issues with it if you have the wrong people playing, but they are all addressable within the published rules with strong DM adjudication.

Which isn't to say I'm not in favor of some houseruling on a few of the worst elements (I tend to go after the low tiers as opposed to bringing down the high tiers,) but 3.5 simply isn't nearly as unworkable as some people state.

What do you do with a fighter who picked up stuff like weapon focus and toughness (ie, core only) in the same game as a sorcerer that picked Polymorph any Object as their one 8th level spell?

Just not bother past level 10, like all the other people that claim that 3.5 doesn't have problems?

[Drachasor]

What do you do with a fighter who picked up stuff like weapon focus and toughness (ie, core only) in the same game as a sorcerer that picked Polymorph any Object as their one 8th level spell?

Just not bother past level 10, like all the other people that claim that 3.5 doesn't have problems?

Remove players; They are wrong. Or DM "adjudicates" fixes.

[Talya]

What do you do with a fighter who picked up stuff like weapon focus and toughness (ie, core only) in the same game as a sorcerer that picked Polymorph any Object as their one 8th level spell?

Just not bother past level 10, like all the other people that claim that 3.5 doesn't have problems?

That fighter will already have died several times, or quit, because honestly, they're just bad at the game. That's not an issue with the game, it's an issue with the player. And as I said, a strong DM can assist with that. If you're dealing with a new player, you should be guiding them to not make such decisions.

While it will never be strong, you can make a fighter work at high levels, but you need some minor amount of system mastery (of course, if you have a certain amount of system mastery, your fighter turns into a warblade, or gains a barbarian dip and the dungeoncrasher ACF, etc.) That fighter doesn't have it. It is not the game's job to protect people from themselves. Some choices SHOULD be better than other choices. If you build a character by throwing darts at a dartboard, expect it to suck, and it should.

[Drachasor]

That fighter will already have died several times, or quit, because honestly, they're just bad at the game. That's not an issue with the game, it's an issue with the player. And as I said, a strong DM can assist with that. If you're dealing with a new player, you should be guiding them to not make such decisions.

While it will never be strong, you can make a fighter work at high levels, but you need some minor amount of system mastery (of course, if you have a certain amount of system mastery, your fighter turns into a warblade, or gains a barbarian dip and the dungeoncrasher ACF, etc.) That fighter doesn't have it. It is not the game's job to protect people from themselves. Some choices SHOULD be better than other choices. If you build a character by throwing darts at a dartboard, expect it to suck, and it should.

In my experience, there are many players who dislike being told how to go about things. They also get frustrated when their character concept doesn't work out. I don't think it is correct to say they have to be the party entirely in the wrong when the game has traps and requires lots of mastery.

And I'm not talking about people that make random choices that don't work together. Spuddles wasn't either, I don't think. We're talking about people who pick feats that seem obviously suited for a particular character (e.g. weapon specialization, etc). There are tons of feats that seem like they would work well if you don't have a certain level of expertise. The fact these feats exist AT ALL is the problem. The same is true of many classes at least in their base/core forms.

There's no good design reason to have a game filled with so much suck that you have to get a degree in D&D engineering to build a good character. Of course, the person player a caster has to do the same both to avoid a too weak character or a too powerful one -- doubly difficult.

Even approaching a fix for that is an immense undertaking unless you just go "tier 3 only" or something like that. Actually, that still leaves many of the problems and also reduces viable character concepts -- so that's not really a solution either.

[Spuddles]

That fighter will already have died several times, or quit, because honestly, they're just bad at the game. That's not an issue with the game, it's an issue with the player. And as I said, a strong DM can assist with that. If you're dealing with a new player, you should be guiding them to not make such decisions.

While it will never be strong, you can make a fighter work at high levels, but you need some minor amount of system mastery (of course, if you have a certain amount of system mastery, your fighter turns into a warblade, or gains a barbarian dip and the dungeoncrasher ACF, etc.) That fighter doesn't have it. It is not the game's job to protect people from themselves. Some choices SHOULD be better than other choices. If you build a character by throwing darts at a dartboard, expect it to suck, and it should.

It's a problem with the system. Compare a fighter's options through the entire run of 3.0 and most of 3.5 to a level 16 sorcerer using only PHB, DMG, and MM.

There's nothing very worthwhile in core for a fighter. Sword & Fist had very little to offer, save knockdown & shield charge. Song & Silence, Tome & Blood- nothing. Savage Species had feral, that was good. BoVD had Disciple of Dispater.

Yet all of that, on a single character, is still gonna be worse than a sorcerer that picked PaO. PaO is just... it's such a stupid spell. It's even more stupid that Shapechange. I can't decide if it's stupider than planar binding or not. I am going to lean towards yes- it's no roll, no cost, no save, "oh hey I made an army of beholders."

It's not whether you can make it work or not, it's how much does it take to work. Fighter, monk, paladin, ranger, in core, don't really work. Maybe ranger, cause skill points. Wizard, druid, cleric, sorcerer- also accidentally problematic.

And I mean problematic in that they have the potential to create huge upsets in narrative and plot structure, not just mess up encounter balance. And that's bad game design. It doesn't really have much to do with players.

[Talya]

There's nothing very worthwhile in core for a fighter.

Core no longer exists.

The game has been out of publication for over 5 years. Everyone has access to all splatbooks. Some people think they can "fix" the balance issues by not allowing all source material. This is silly, as the source material boosts the lower tier classes far more than the higher tier 1s. The default game is the entirety of what was published for it.

In any event, I have nothing against the Monte Cook style of game-making, that rewards thinking things through. You used "Toughness" as the example feat for the fighter, if you took Toughness, you deserve to suck. It's obviously bad.

[Spuddles]

Core no longer exists.

The game has been out of publication for over 5 years. Everyone has access to all splatbooks. Some people think they can "fix" the balance issues by not allowing all source material. This is silly, as the source material boosts the lower tier classes far more than the higher tier 1s. The default game is the entirety of what was published for it.

In any event, I have nothing against the Monte Cook style of game-making, that rewards thinking things through. You used "Toughness" as the example feat for the fighter, if you took Toughness, you deserve to suck. It's obviously bad.

So it's not a bad system if you don't use the bad parts?

Flawless logic.

[Talya]

Not what i'm saying.

I'm saying there are supposed to be bad parts. There are supposed to be bad choices. You are supposed to be rewarded for building competently.

Think of the MtG card game...now, I don't play CCGs, so i'm not going to get specific, but I read a design article on games talking about this once. They intentionally design bad cards, it's part of the point. It's part of what makes good cards good. Everything is not supposed to be equally useful.

The same is true of D&D 3rd edition. Not all options are supposed to be equal. Some have very few uses for players at all. Toughness, as an example, is for monsters and NPCs, not players. Others have uses that only become worthwhile when paired with other abilities. (Two-Weapon Fighting and a source of bonus damage, for example.) Some are just good to start with. You don't need to be a genius to make it work. With the entirety of 3.5's available rules, there is now no character concept you cannot build effectively using just one or two classes. But it does require thinking things through. Just playing fighter 20? You can actually be better than terrible, but why play fighter 20? There's nothing fighter 20 gives you, as a concept, as fluff, or as crunch, that you can't get better from other classes. If you take fighter 20, you are lying in the bed you made, likely against the advice of your DM. Suck it up.

If there's no variation...if every option is equally useful, you end up with a tactical board game like 4e. Some people like that type of thing. I don't. I like having a limitless number of options, of varying effectiveness, and thinking of novel ways to combine them to create a particular theme and make it work. The character design process itself is a huge part of the game, and should be. I don't want to be able to pick any option I want that appeals to me and not have it matter, mechanically. That's the way 4e goes.

[Drachasor]

MtG has bad cards (and random cards) so you keep spending money trying to get the good ones. It's a business model.

You can have a pretty good level of balance without making everything the same. Heck, the fact there are tiers at all shows that.

[Phelix-Mu]

So it's not a bad system if you don't use the bad parts?

Flawless logic.

It's certainly not a good system if you only use the bad parts. Sweeping generalization is sweeping.

I think that it's a truism to say that an inexperienced player (or an experienced one with some ulterior motive) can make a bad character of any class. Unoptimizing is easy. For some classes it's easy, because the baseline tier of the class is low, and marginal improvements to something with a low op-ceiling will yield only small gains.

But that being said, I'm with Talya. A good DM can make suggestions without co-opting an inexperienced player's character, or allow retraining when the player realizes their mistake, or allow a new character when the terrible character dies. If the player is having fun with a terrible character (and isn't posing an issue to the group dynamic), then the game is already working; optimization is ALWAYS secondary to enjoyability of the game.

A good bit of the discussion of "is system X good as is, or does it need fixed" is quite arcane. It needs fixed if it's not working around a certain table, and if it is working around a certain table, it doesn't need fixed. WotC probably isn't going to go back to making 3.5, so houserules and homebrew acceptable by DM sanction are all the cookies we are going to get for the duration.

And, with that being said, I am a total junkie for these kinds of discussions. I like the idea of an evolving community and current incarnation of the game. Static RAW is kind of boring, and tweaks and houserules, and lists of RAW dysfunction, all of that is like another step toward enlightenment. Some day the true, undiluted RAW will descend upon us, like Pistis Sophia delivering some sacred gospel to one of her monk followers. Until then, we get to swing the banhammers and wrenches at what we have with as much or as little abandon as we deem fit.:smallcool:

[navar100]

I see a lot of comments like this one whenever someone brings up a potential fix to the system, and I have to wonder, dude: what is your goal in talking about it?

I mean I have no plan to engage you on a discussion about whether the system does in fact need fixing, the fact is that that discussion in itself is at the heart of every single 30 page long argument people have over monks and wizards and tome of battle (unless they're complaining about fluff which I'm also definitely not getting into), and since they still happen it's clearly not a situation that is likely to resolve itself anytime soon. So that's fine, different flavors of ice cream, whatever. But like, here again is back to my point, this guy/gal has clearly chosen his/her side on the ice cream debate so why even bring it up? He's/She's (okay, I'm getting tired of typing that, sorry OP if you're a girl but I'm going to masculine pronouns) not trying to remove your ability to consume chocolate ice cream, he's just trying to change the flavor to something that suits his needs.

There's all sorts of reasons for him to do that, it's easier to change what you have than rewrite a complete system, maybe his players (as I've experienced in the past) only want to eat chocolate ice cream, but want to eat chocolate ice cream by name only, and if you gave them vanilla or strawberry ice cream and called it chocolate they'd be much more likely to be accepting of your delicious dairy dessert. Maybe he just likes engaging in thought exercises about hypothetical methods of changing the flavor of ice creams, but the point is I guess that none of it really affects you much. Like at this point you're basically walking into a person's kitchen and complaining about the ice cream that they're serving themselves and potential other guests because you like the ice cream you eat at home.

If you don't like something you don't like it, but that doesn't make it a universal truth. Colloquial you may hate Natural Spell with a passion but in another group the Druid takes Natural Spell and everyone is hunkydory. When a player finds his character build is not working, he doesn't have to mope and resent it, cursing at 3E to kingdom come. The DM could check to see if the encounters he presents are always nullifying the character. In addition or alternatively, the DM lets the player tweak the character. Retrain feats, reassign skill points, change spells known for spontaneous casters. 3E has codified rules to do that if needed or DM can fiat or a combination.

However, it's still the case that there exists playing groups with a wizard, cleric, and druid playing along with a fighter, paladin, and monk and everyone is happy, and such groups are not rare.

[eggynack]

What do you do with a fighter who picked up stuff like weapon focus and toughness (ie, core only) in the same game as a sorcerer that picked Polymorph any Object as their one 8th level spell?

Just not bother past level 10, like all the other people that claim that 3.5 doesn't have problems?
Can't you just not allow one out of either the fighter or the sorcerer in the game? I'm not saying that you toss out the player, but an adult type conversation prior to game play about the power level everyone feels comfortable with seems completely reasonable. If one of the players still wants to play a fighter in a party with a group of tier one's, they should enter into that with the knowledge that their class isn't going to give them much, and if they later decide that the low power level isn't working out, you can just let them roll up something with more zest, or rework the original concept to be more powerful. It's not the only solution, but the point is that the game is nowhere near impossible to fix, and the fix didn't take that much work.

@ navar: I might have missed it in the original post, but I don't think the OP said, "This is the only possible way to fix the game, and everyone who uses a different method is wrong." In fact, I think that the only person who suggested that other people were wrong for their solutions was you. He was just proposing a neat thing that he thinks will work, and your reaction was to tell him to go to a different game.

[MeiLeTeng]

If you don't like something you don't like it, but that doesn't make it a universal truth. Colloquial you may hate Natural Spell with a passion but in another group the Druid takes Natural Spell and everyone is hunkydory. When a player finds his character build is not working, he doesn't have to mope and resent it, cursing at 3E to kingdom come. The DM could check to see if the encounters he presents are always nullifying the character. In addition or alternatively, the DM lets the player tweak the character. Retrain feats, reassign skill points, change spells known for spontaneous casters. 3E has codified rules to do that if needed or DM can fiat or a combination.

However, it's still the case that there exists playing groups with a wizard, cleric, and druid playing along with a fighter, paladin, and monk and everyone is happy, and such groups are not rare.

Yeah, you didn't really answer my question at all, you just kinda restated what you previously said with more detail.

I'm over it though because I was really just hoping to avoid this thread turning into the 10000th debate thread about if 3.x is broken/imbalanced and it looks like it's pretty much already there.

[Darth Stabber]

This is excellent. The brevity of expression, ease of application and scope of application make this fix among the best I have seen. I especially like how it makes the partial progress PrC's viable choices. But could you clarify which t5 and t6 gestalt combos you do not allow? And what circumstances would disallow 9's at level 20?

Classes allowed for the gestalting: warrior, expert, aristocrat, adept, samurai (oa and cwar), ninja (oa and cwar), soulborn, monk, soulknife, healer (with gate not coming online until lvl 20), dragon shaman, warmage, commoner, swashbuckler (without daring outlaw), and spellthief (without master spellthief). There are some I am probably forgetting (I am on my phone and without access to my notes), but fighter, ranger, and paladin are specifically exempted due to acfs and excellent splat support. Warmage may be tier4, but was dropped due to the fact that in the campaigns I tend to run, they tend to be weaker than normal for some odd reason.

Truenamer and artificer are outright banned, truenamer as a measure of player protection, and artificer since it dodges the simple fix and requires far more understanding to appropriately fix than I currently possess. Spell-to-power and erudite acfs for psion are also off the table, since they are buffs and the balance goal is t3.

As far as preventin access to 9's at 20, that's not what I am doing, delaying them that long is the minimum, though I am not ruling that possibility out for the future if it becomes necessary. 9's become a nice capstone. None of this affects NPCs, partially because I cn balance them out myself, and partially because I tend to make things up as I go along, and that would make it more of pain in the butt to use t1&t2 classes as on the spot foes.

The newb provision isn't necessary, but given the low likelihood of newbs causing the kind of problems that lead to the implemention of this kind of system, it doesn't really hurt anything (assuming the players understand why you are using the system). The goal is tier 3, but honestly most of the gestalt combos still don't make that mark (especially the ones not involving adept), but most will hit tier 4 (assuming you don't do something silly like warrior//samurai). The interesting part is that most non-playground/4chan players I have discussed this with will avoid adept due to it's NPC class status.

[Jack_Simth]

an adult type conversation prior to game play about the power level everyone feels comfortable with seems completely reasonable.
You'd think. But unless you've got a rather lot of shared gaming experience with the specific person with whom you're discussing power levels, it's actually rather difficult to communicate a specific power level intelligibly (For one person, "High Power" may mean preparing something other than fireballs on their wizard; for another, "High Power" may mean chain-gating; unless you've got a hefty amount of shared gaming experience with the person with whom you're communicating, there's no easy reference for 'normal' for tuning up or down). I mean, there's the PFO and PFD numbers, but most people aren't aware of what those are, much less how to use them intelligently (and they still have deep flaws, but they at least give a starting point and some references in the conversation).

[eggynack]

You'd think. But unless you've got a rather lot of shared gaming experience with the specific person with whom you're discussing power levels, it's actually rather difficult to communicate a specific power level intelligibly (For one person, "High Power" may mean preparing something other than fireballs on their wizard; for another, "High Power" may mean chain-gating; unless you've got a hefty amount of shared gaming experience with the person with whom you're communicating, there's no easy reference for 'normal' for tuning up or down). I mean, there's the PFO and PFD numbers, but most people aren't aware of what those are, much less how to use them intelligently (and they still have deep flaws, but they at least give a starting point and some references in the conversation).
Well, you can always just ask. Maybe toss in something like, "What do you consider high power?" If one guy thinks monks are high power, and the other thinks monks are low power, then both people can play monks, and the game will be relatively balanced. It's not like people's perceptions have to factor too heavily into the decision, as long as the actual classes are basically balanced against one another. Tier based bannings aren't a perfect solution, because different people have different ranges of system mastery, but it's a start. Even if the different characters won't necessarily be balanced against each other, at least no one will be condemned immediately after class selection.

[TuggyNE]

Think of the MtG card game...now, I don't play CCGs, so i'm not going to get specific, but I read a design article on games talking about this once. They intentionally design bad cards, it's part of the point. It's part of what makes good cards good. Everything is not supposed to be equally useful.

This is true of a competitive game based around fighting with your wallet. It is not so true of a cooperative game based around fighting against your shared foes.

More specifically, MtG specifically designs cards that are terrible, in order to weed out stupid players. This isn't really a great design paradigm for D&D, because why are you weeding out players?


The same is true of D&D 3rd edition. Not all options are supposed to be equal. Some have very few uses for players at all. Toughness, as an example, is for monsters and NPCs, not players.

In which case, it should have been put in Monster Feats.


If there's no variation...if every option is equally useful, you end up with a tactical board game like 4e. Some people like that type of thing. I don't. I like having a limitless number of options, of varying effectiveness, and thinking of novel ways to combine them to create a particular theme and make it work. The character design process itself is a huge part of the game, and should be. I don't want to be able to pick any option I want that appeals to me and not have it matter, mechanically. That's the way 4e goes.

I do agree that options having no mechanical effect is bad. However, it does not follow that balance must mean sameness; this is one of the most pervasive misconceptions, I think. (And one of the reasons I hate 4e: it spoiled the market by blundering in and conflating the two!) While, in any given situation, a particular character may have an advantage over a different character because of their build choices, balance comes when a) such situations are roughly evenly distributed between characters and b) few or no situations produce an utterly overwhelming difference between characters based on their builds (for example, where one character can automatically succeed at whatever is needed to handle the situation, and another character automatically fails at what they would try).

[Talya]

@ navar: I might have missed it in the original post, but I don't think the OP said, "This is the only possible way to fix the game, and everyone who uses a different method is wrong." In fact, I think that the only person who suggested that other people were wrong for their solutions was you. He was just proposing a neat thing that he thinks will work, and your reaction was to tell him to go to a different game.

He said:


3.5 is agreed to be a generally near-impossible system to fix, at least without serious overhaul.

"Fix" implies it's somehow broken. I don't believe it is. It is not balanced, and is, like all game systems, flawed in various ways. I do not believe it is broken. It is not only playable, as is, but I believe it is the best game system yet, as is.

(I actually am warming up to pathfinder, though.)

[eggynack]

"Fix" implies it's somehow broken. I don't believe it is. It is not balanced, and is, like all game systems, flawed in various ways. I do not believe it is broken. It is not only playable, as is, but I believe it is the best game system yet, as is.

(I actually am warming up to pathfinder, though.)
Well, fix can also imply imbalance, and I think that's what he did mean, given the thread title. The system is absolutely playable, but it has problems, and the OP is suggesting one possible solution. What he didn't do was suggest one solution to rule them all, even if the thread title may imply that. I love the system, but to get it to work in situations with a range of tiers can take work, at least if the players know what they're doing. Navar was claiming that the OP was claiming that his solution was the only one, while simultaneously doing just that. That's the thing I was objecting to. If a group is fine with their game just being imbalanced, that's one possible solution, but it's not one I'd expect every group to want. Moreover, wanting an actual solution doesn't mean that you need to move on to a different system.

[navar100]

I did not say the OP declared his way was the only way. I said 3E didn't need fixing. I said that if you have to change it, if you have to whack it with a banhammer, then 3E is just not a game for you. Plenty of people get to play their monks along side druids and everyone is happy.

[Flickerdart]

I did not say the OP declared his way was the only way. I said 3E didn't need fixing. I said that if you have to change it, if you have to whack it with a banhammer, then 3E is just not a game for you. Plenty of people get to play their monks along side druids and everyone is happy.
And plenty of people don't and want to. I'm not sure why that's so hard for you to understand, that somebody might like the game but not necessarily the power disparity between its options.

[jindra34]

Well I honestly think 3.x is nigh completely broken. Not just because of the imbalance but because of the variance that comes with it. The same variance that makes it impossible to communicate exactly what level of power you want to (or are going to) play at. Systemic issues that make it nigh impossible to get everyone on the same page sounds pretty broken to me. And yes I did move on to other games, because there is no quick easy fix.

[eggynack]

I did not say the OP declared his way was the only way. I said 3E didn't need fixing. I said that if you have to change it, if you have to whack it with a banhammer, then 3E is just not a game for you. Plenty of people get to play their monks along side druids and everyone is happy.
So what you're doing is declaring your way a universal truth. If I want to play a game of 3.5 without a monk and a druid, well screw me then. I just have to have the imbalance, or move on to another game. I'm saying that that's stupid. I can play this game, and I can play it the way I want to play it, and it can remain the game for me. I can eliminate the power disparity with minimal effort, and it's completely alright if you want to play with the power disparity intact, but that's a choice you're making. It's not an absolute and incontrovertible law that you have to have monks and druids living side by side, and the idea that it would be is ridiculous.

As you said, "If you don't like something you don't like it, but that doesn't make it a universal truth," and that remains true of these fixes. Just because you don't like a fix, that doesn't mean that everyone dislikes it. With some editing, the OP's fix is completely workable, and will lead to game states that lots of people would likely enjoy. It's not my favorite method of fixing the game, and it's clearly not yours, but that doesn't make it wrong, and that doesn't mean that he has to run away from the game with his tail between his legs. He can use this fix, and other people can too, and you can continue doing whatever it is that you do. You shouldn't condemn people for wanting to fix things though, because that's a perfect way to keep things broken.

[Kuulvheysoon]

He said:



"Fix" implies it's somehow broken. I don't believe it is. It is not balanced, and is, like all game systems, flawed in various ways. I do not believe it is broken. It is not only playable, as is, but I believe it is the best game system yet, as is.

(I actually am warming up to pathfinder, though.)

Unless, of course, we;re talking about Truenamers. Then 3.5e is broken.

[Darth Stabber]

Well I honestly think 3.x is nigh completely broken. Not just because of the imbalance but because of the variance that comes with it. The same variance that makes it impossible to communicate exactly what level of power you want to (or are going to) play at. Systemic issues that make it nigh impossible to get everyone on the same page sounds pretty broken to me. And yes I did move on to other games, because there is no quick easy fix.

It's actually fairly to communicate certain balance levels, thanks to JaronK. And beating the game into shape is fun. If you are willing to work it can be what you want.


(I actually am warming up to pathfinder, though.)

Probably stirring up a hornet's nest, but so be it: Pathfinder does almost nothing to solve the underlying balance problems of 3.5. It fixes some minor surface issues, and brings a few of the most egregious spells under control, the teirs are still there, with some minor rearranging. The books of late 3.5 do more to balance the game than anything paizo has done with PF. And Paizo has a history of giving the middle finger to certain sections of the player base.


I did not say the OP declared his way was the only way. I said 3E didn't need fixing. I said that if you have to change it, if you have to whack it with a banhammer, then 3E is just not a game for you. Plenty of people get to play their monks along side druids and everyone is happy.

3.5 is made for kitbashing. Any rpg I gm I am going mercilessly beat it into the shape I want, and 3.5 has the most active community to confer with in this regard.

[Demidos]

Hoo-boy, lots of posts here.

For the sake of not posting pages and pages of long quotes in odd orders, i've organized the comments and their answers into two sections. I have probably also ripped apart your comments into the core sentence of each.

That said.

Advice (with responses) concerning the system mechanics:


I'd also avoid allowing T3 to gestalt with Adept, which is already radically better than the other NPC classes.

Finally, I do like the idea of spell slots of levels 7, 8, and maybe 9 just for metamagicking. It's a solid idea, and avoids some uneven power-ramping that the fix might otherwise introduce. I don't know how you'd add these slots without deviating from the bard spell progression, but I'm sure one could tinker with the tables a bit.

And, this time I'm almost done for sure, but I think this fix somewhat ignores psionics.

My bad, that was supposed to be adressed. That should be fixed now.

That is an interesting idea. I'd have to think how to incorporate it. The downside is, of course, that it practically forces metamagic on casters.

This fix does indeed ignore psionics, artificing, and true-naming (think thats it). I'll note it in the original post, but I don't feel I have enough experience to work those.


The proposed fix doesn't nerf druid as much as you might think. You make one of it's three pillars wobbly, but it still leaves the two reasons why they don't often take full casting PRCs intact. Wild shape and animal companion keep them pretty well buoyed, they maybe weaker, but they really don't fall that far.

Personally I just forbid t1 and t2 classes. -snip- It requires less rewritting than the OP's system, but operates on a similar principle (and I very easy to implement).

It should destabilize two pillars, if I did my math correctly (Wildshape and Spellcasting)? Actually, the third should wobble too, if only a little -- Past the first couple levels, the Animal Companion becomes far less powerful unless supported by buffs. These buffs now only affect the animal companion (instead of both the wild-shaped druid and it), making it a less optimal choice to cast spells that buff the companion than it was before.

*Shrug* While yes, that is slightly easier, you lose many many pieces of the game. Personally, I love playing druids. Also, I don't feel like it makes it that much more difficult. Personal opinion.


There are plenty of spells level 6 and under that crack the game wide open. Meanwhile, the low tiers still don't get to do anything useful. This solves nothing, but at least it doesn't make the game very much worse than some other "easy" fixes I've seen.

I wouldn't quite agree. Getting gestalt can boost low tiers' power and versatility hugely. Look! My fighter now can use warlock powers! And while I take your point on the spells, do note that this delays their progression until later levels, so it at least gives the lower tiers a chance to fight back. Still, if it makes it better....I could include a link to Test of Spite's ban-list?


If you're going to allow partial gestalt, don't nerf the T1 and 2 casters spell progression. There's got to be a reward for not gestalting if it's an option on the table. Partial gestalt has the potential to bring most any character into t3 range, which are perfectly playable in a party with top Tier classes. Some of those class combinations would become significantly better than modified t1s.

On natural spell: I'd rather put some limitation on its use than ban it entirely. Maybe base a revised version on Turn attempts or something. The Druid only has X number of natural spell points and he has to burn one for every spell he casts while wildshaped.

One fix I add: Battle Blessing becomes available to all "half caster" classes (defined as those base classes that only grant up to level 4 spells with a modified caster level progression.)

I think the power of the spell lists of those classes accounts for that. I find it hard to think of a class combination that would be "significantly better" than even a modified T1. Slightly better? Perhaps, but thats not particularly a worry, that just means everything is roughly T3. Could you give me an example in which this would occur?

While it is a really cool idea to cast while in animal form....I can't see how to improve it without making it roughly the same power level it currently is. Wildshape is strong enough as-is. As to those suggesting aspect druid -- I believe you can cast in that form, but the forms are weaker. Seems more or less balanced to me.


A wizard with bard progression is at approximately the power level of a bard. Druids need some bonus nerfing on top of the other casters, because they're tier three even with no spells at all. Natural spell is a start, but that's all it is. It's weird that beguiler type casters are the only guys around that can access 9th's, though it might work out as a trade off of spell level for a bigger list. Clerics are probably the class that's hit the hardest by this stuff, because their list isn't as crazy as the wizard, and their class features aren't as good as the druid.

As has been noted, you should probably replace "NPC" with "tier six".

Finally, you may want to consider altering the caster spell progression so that they get first level spells at first level. As is, they're basically completely worthless at that level, and it wouldn't unbalance your fix.

That was all as planned. Though note druid is weaker than you might think (see comment above) and that wizards have a better list than do bards, as well as the ability to have far more spells known.

Noted and fixed.

Noted. Thanks!


Fighter, ranger, and paladin are specifically exempted due to acfs and excellent splat support.

The goal is tier 3, but honestly most of the gestalt combos still don't make that mark (especially the ones not involving adept), but most will hit tier 4 (assuming you don't do something silly like warrior//samurai). The interesting part is that most non-playground/4chan players I have discussed this with will avoid adept due to it's NPC class status.

This is why I kept them in. They have options, but theyre weak. Perfect to buff with one of those bonus damage or skill point gestalts!

Depends on your gestalt combo, yes, but with dipping, many things can be achieved. Up to the player, obviously.


Comments (and responses) concerning the purpose of the "fix":


Comments (chosen from among many concerning similar ideas, spoilered for length):

It's not a system that needs fixing. If you absolutely must overhaul it or whack it with the banhammer, you should admit to yourself you just hate 3E already and play some other system altogether. Really, there are playing groups where players play wizards, clerics, and druids alongside fighters, monks, and paladins and everyone gets along quite fine. Everyone contributes. No one "wins" D&D, and no one "loses" D&D either.

We like our chocolate ice cream. Maybe you just prefer strawberry.



No, it's really not.

There are a few issues with it if you have the wrong people playing, but they are all addressable within the published rules with strong DM adjudication.

Which isn't to say I'm not in favor of some houseruling on a few of the worst elements (I tend to go after the low tiers as opposed to bringing down the high tiers,) but 3.5 simply isn't nearly as unworkable as some people state.


Core no longer exists.

The game has been out of publication for over 5 years. Everyone has access to all splatbooks. Some people think they can "fix" the balance issues by not allowing all source material. This is silly, as the source material boosts the lower tier classes far more than the higher tier 1s. The default game is the entirety of what was published for it.

In any event, I have nothing against the Monte Cook style of game-making, that rewards thinking things through. You used "Toughness" as the example feat for the fighter, if you took Toughness, you deserve to suck. It's obviously bad.

First off: Disclaimer -- I do not, and have not ever played with this set of rules (partial gestalt, yes, but not the other two). My party consists of two friends, where all three of us possess considerable system mastery. We are usually quite capable of making powerful characters from lower tiers, and haven't really had any problems to speak of. This is, as originally noted, more of a thought experiment, a theoretical idea I had bouncing around my head more than a concrete, suggested way of doing things. And while we (and apparently you as well) are fine, sometimes its just more helpful to have it codified into set rules.

Second off: My bad -- I meant to say "balance" rather than "fix". Its not perfect, but I imagine that it sure as heck helps.

That said...I would argue several of those points. For someone who has no idea how the game progresses, Toughness might seem attractive. I see where you're headed, Tayla, but your model presumes that everyone has a) Large amounts of time to invest into learning all the rules, b) has access to all the sourcebooks (and even MORE time to read them all), and c) has a knack for optimization. In short, that everyone has at least a fairly strong grasp of the system. I wouldn't say you should assume this is the case.

While I would agree with you that banning source material right and left is not the best of practices, i'm not so sure on the thought that splat-books as a rule improve lower tiers to a greater extent than higher tiers. So far as I can tell, they improve higher tiers, and flat out replace lower tiers with better classes (added spells vs added classes. Like draconic polymorph vs factotum. ...I think you get the point). If I am still misunderstanding, could you provide an example?

[eggynack]

@Demidos: First, glad I could help on the actual thing that's the topic of discussion. The thing about wild shape that might make it problematic is that it's tier three all on its own. This is true even if you're not casting while bearing around, due to the sheer versatility of the ability. Druid casting, limited though it may be, is still pretty powerful. I'd say that it's around tier three, though that assessment might be a little off. All in all, it feels a bit more powerful than other options, though probably not an entire tier's worth. It might turn out fine, but druids are dangerous, and are probably worth some bonus thought as a result.

Second, I thought I'd address the core melee thing. The thing is, extra splat books only push wizards from tier one to more tier one. They break the game, with nothing but core, so the supplements don't make that big of a difference in terms of the overall power level of tier one classes. Meanwhile, melee guys get a bunch of stuff. There's obviously the option of just converting straight across to tier three classes, but those classes have the ability to help melee guys, even if you're not staying in those classes all the way. Supplements give melee guys actual options. A good example of this is runescarred berserker from Unapproachable East. On its own, that class has the capacity to push a barbarian build to tier three. Similarly, just tossing a dip into warblade, or totemist, or psychic warrior, can really push things. In any case, core melee guys tend to stick around tiers four and five, and supplements can get them to tier three, and that's enough to make supplements better for melee guys. Whether you do that through just taking warblade for twenty levels, or through getting pounce, whirling frenzy, and shock trooper onto a barbarian build, or tossing on a powerful prestige class, it tends to get you further than wizards can get.

[Darth Stabber]

It should destabilize two pillars, if I did my math correctly (Wildshape and Spellcasting)? Actually, the third should wobble too, if only a little -- Past the first couple levels, the Animal Companion becomes far less powerful unless supported by buffs. These buffs now only affect the animal companion (instead of both the wild-shaped druid and it), making it a less optimal choice to cast spells that buff the companion than it was before.

*Shrug* While yes, that is slightly easier, you lose many many pieces of the game. Personally, I love playing druids. Also, I don't feel like it makes it that much more difficult. Personal opinion.



I missed the part about swapping out wildshape, which makes spells a little wobblier, almost invalidating a portion of their list (unless they invest heavily in handle animal and extra pets, which is a different question, but handle animal optimiation shenanigans are fun). They still have a good and varied spell list (even in core, but especially when SpC becomes involved), and the summoning they have is great (more combative, less utilitarian than summon monster), and they have some decent blastomancy. Animal companion buffing is only slight retarded, they still have most of the great ones, and the reduced access just forces them to specialize in it a bit more to make up for it.

And my point was with the method I suggested you didn't have to rework anything, everything continues to function the way it always had. If you need a more extreme nerfing, that's fine, I was just giving an example of something similar that I have an actual case study in. Keep in mind though that this "case study" should be taken with a grain of salt since my GMing style is heavily focused on making things up as I go along, and rolling dice to see how I feel about them, which is a fairly radical departure from both my experience as a player and from what I hear from others.


@Demidos: First, glad I could help on the actual thing that's the topic of discussion. The thing about wild shape that might make it problematic is that it's tier three all on its own. This is true even if you're not casting while bearing around, due to the sheer versatility of the ability. Druid casting, limited though it may be, is still pretty powerful. I'd say that it's around tier three, though that assessment might be a little off. All in all, it feels a bit more powerful than other options, though probably not an entire tier's worth. It might turn out fine, but druids are dangerous, and are probably worth some bonus thought as a result.

Regular druid casting on it's own is still probably t1 (though the weakest t1), or high tier 2. They have a wide and varied spell list with access to almost anything you could want, though there are a few abilities that it expects to be covered by wildshape instead of casting, and most of it's buffs are designed with animals in mind. Given that the summon monster vestige puts binder in t2, we can probably extrapolate that SNA keeps them from falling that far. When that progression becomes retarded we have a few issues that come up, mostly that the summons are less useful, and the blastomancy just isn't keeping up. If wildshape goes too then we face issues with the fact that self buffing is now smashed to bits, unless you are a race that naturally has a few natural weapons. So long as wildshape remains intact it would require some serious nerfing to spells to really drop them, and the real damage happens to the animal companion first.


Second, I thought I'd address the core melee thing. The thing is, extra splat books only push wizards from tier one to more tier one. They break the game, with nothing but core, so the supplements don't make that big of a difference in terms of the overall power level of tier one classes. Meanwhile, melee guys get a bunch of stuff. There's obviously the option of just converting straight across to tier three classes, but those classes have the ability to help melee guys, even if you're not staying in those classes all the way. Supplements give melee guys actual options. A good example of this is runescarred berserker from Unapproachable East. On its own, that class has the capacity to push a barbarian build to tier three. Similarly, just tossing a dip into warblade, or totemist, or psychic warrior, can really push things. In any case, core melee guys tend to stick around tiers four and five, and supplements can get them to tier three, and that's enough to make supplements better for melee guys. Whether you do that through just taking warblade for twenty levels, or through getting pounce, whirling frenzy, and shock trooper onto a barbarian build, or tossing on a powerful prestige class, it tends to get you further than wizards can get.

Competent core melee consists of CoDzilla, and in a DISTANT way down the line horizon tripper, and then everything else is pretty far after that. Expanding out of core is needed for most things to have a chance, because even horizon tripper isn't that good. CWar and PHB2 are a minimum, but ToB is the real fix (even if people hate it for being weaboo or similar nonsense).

[eggynack]

Regular druid casting on it's own is still probably t1 (though the weakest t1), or high tier 2. They have a wide and varied spell list with access to almost anything you could want, though there are a few abilities that it expects to be covered by wildshape instead of casting, and most of it's buffs are designed with animals in mind. Given that the summon monster vestige puts binder in t2, we can probably extrapolate that SNA keeps them from falling that far.

Sorry if I was unclear about the casting thing. I meant that druid casting, when limited to only bardic progression, is around tier three. On its own, druid casting tends to be around tier one, as you claim. I'm not sure that my tier three guess is perfectly accurate, though it's certainly close. Also, I'm pretty sure that this fix keeps wild shape intact, but nerfs it through the removal of natural spell. I'm not sure that it's enough, though I may be mistaken about wild shape's status. It doesn't look like it was removed anywhere in the original post.

[Phelix-Mu]

Whether you do that through just taking warblade for twenty levels, or through getting pounce, whirling frenzy, and shock trooper onto a barbarian build, or tossing on a powerful prestige class, it tends to get you further than wizards can get.

So, I see your point, looking at the tier changes and saying "Wizard didn't improve, others did." But I think you're limited because the tier system doesn't really have logic to back up tiers higher than tier 1.

Let's look at martial class improvements versus, let's say, ice assassin. Martial classes got a lot better. But ice assassin is the key behind some of the least well-thought-out implications of the published material. It's a single spell that gives a wizard perfect permanent copies of other party members, key npcs, key villains, heroes of the bygone era, and (in the most abusive interpretations) the abilities of gods. I think this is rather a bigger boost in effective power than the other classes get, ignoring that core wizard can already accomplish lots of this. Even if the core wiz 20 had all of his spells and WBL removed, and then was given a spellbook with only ice assassin, he could conceivably proceed to rebuild back to the level of power of a wizard that has everything without too much difficulty (the wiz would need enough components to cast the spell once).

I think there are one or two other splatbook spells that do this kind of "one-trick-pony-and-win" thing, but they aren't coming to mind. In a vacuum, the ability granted by some single spells outweighs the gain of entire arrays of martial abilities. It's a 9th level spell, so it should be nice, but it's kind of much, much better than "nice."

[Talya]

Let's look at martial class improvements versus, let's say, ice assassin. Martial classes got a lot better.



I disagree. First of all, there is a tier 0 (and even a tier 0.5) to rate things that are beyond tier 1. Splatbook material doesn't push tier 1s into that range without pun-pun-type shenanigans. All the most potentially game breaking stuff is in core. Seriously. There is nothing outside of core that matches the potential of Time Stop, Gate, Shapechange, or Polymorph Any Object. There's no protections as wanted as Mind Blank.

Which isn't to say Wizards don't improve outside of core, they do. However, the whole Linear Fighters, Quadratic Wizards (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LinearWarriorsQuadraticWizards) thing doesn't entirely hold up in core. Tier 1s still outpace earlier tiers, but with splatbook material, melee types can advance only slightly less than the quadratic wizard does. Meanwhile, splatbook material adds to spellcaster power only linearly. It doesn't balance them out, not completely. What it means is that non-spellcasters are now in the high tier 3-approaching tier 2 range instead of tier 4-5, tier 2s remain tier 2s, while tier 1s move from lowish tier 1s to highish tier 1s.

[undead hero]

OP have you played E6?

Fixes the game by taking out the spells that really beat up the balance 4th and higher.

[Flickerdart]

OP have you played E6?

Fixes the game by taking out the spells that really beat up the balance 4th and higher.
E6 does more than just that.

Full BAB is now more valuable because you get an extra attack for having 6 BAB.
High hit dice are more valuable because you can't jack up your Constitution as high anymore.
Low skill points and crappy skill lists aren't so bad because you can get more skill points with the tons of feats.
Lack of class features isn't so bad because without being strung along for capstones, you can multiclass through front-loaded classes.
Races with lots of special abilities (and thus high LA) aren't so bad because you don't actually lose levels from taking them.

E6 basically hits all of the points that low-tier melee struggles with (except Fighter, but every E6 Fighter should be Dungeoncrasher anyway). Not every instance is a perfect fix, but it's a simple fix, and sometimes that's better.

[undead hero]

E6 does more than just that.

Full BAB is now more valuable because you get an extra attack for having 6 BAB.
High hit dice are more valuable because you can't jack up your Constitution as high anymore.
Low skill points and crappy skill lists aren't so bad because you can get more skill points with the tons of feats.
Lack of class features isn't so bad because without being strung along for capstones, you can multiclass through front-loaded classes.
Races with lots of special abilities (and thus high LA) aren't so bad because you don't actually lose levels from taking them.

E6 basically hits all of the points that low-tier melee struggles with (except Fighter, but every E6 Fighter should be Dungeoncrasher anyway). Not every instance is a perfect fix, but it's a simple fix, and sometimes that's better.

I'm on my phone and hit submit on accident, was trying to fix it after I placed my lunch order :smallredface:

But you are totally correct. Well said.

[Darth Stabber]

I disagree. First of all, there is a tier 0 (and even a tier 0.5) to rate things that are beyond tier 1. Splatbook material doesn't push tier 1s into that range without pun-pun-type shenanigans. All the most potentially game breaking stuff is in core. Seriously. There is nothing outside of core that matches the potential of Time Stop, Gate, Shapechange, or Polymorph Any Object. There's no protections as wanted as Mind Blank.

Which isn't to say Wizards don't improve outside of core, they do. However, the whole Linear Fighters, Quadratic Wizards (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LinearWarriorsQuadraticWizards) thing doesn't entirely hold up in core. Tier 1s still outpace earlier tiers, but with splatbook material, melee types can advance only slightly less than the quadratic wizard does. Meanwhile, splatbook material adds to spellcaster power only linearly. It doesn't balance them out, not completely. What it means is that non-spellcasters are now in the high tier 3-approaching tier 2 range instead of tier 4-5, tier 2s remain tier 2s, while tier 1s move from lowish tier 1s to highish tier 1s.

Not quite, meleers get to tier3 via ToB, but that book doesn't put the classes outside of it in that range. And splats in general do more for meleers only because they had more room to grow. Spellcasters had access to everything needed to rip the game in half in core, everything added is just icing on the cake, it's hard to grow power when you start at godlike. Non-ToB melee is happy to hit tier 4 even with splat, namely because all of those neat feats and acfs just continue to push down the one trick pony path, which is tier 4.

[navar100]

So what you're doing is declaring your way a universal truth. If I want to play a game of 3.5 without a monk and a druid, well screw me then. I just have to have the imbalance, or move on to another game. I'm saying that that's stupid. I can play this game, and I can play it the way I want to play it, and it can remain the game for me. I can eliminate the power disparity with minimal effort, and it's completely alright if you want to play with the power disparity intact, but that's a choice you're making. It's not an absolute and incontrovertible law that you have to have monks and druids living side by side, and the idea that it would be is ridiculous.

As you said, "If you don't like something you don't like it, but that doesn't make it a universal truth," and that remains true of these fixes. Just because you don't like a fix, that doesn't mean that everyone dislikes it. With some editing, the OP's fix is completely workable, and will lead to game states that lots of people would likely enjoy. It's not my favorite method of fixing the game, and it's clearly not yours, but that doesn't make it wrong, and that doesn't mean that he has to run away from the game with his tail between his legs. He can use this fix, and other people can too, and you can continue doing whatever it is that you do. You shouldn't condemn people for wanting to fix things though, because that's a perfect way to keep things broken.

If druid and monk in the same party doesn't work for you, so be it, but that's all it means. It doesn't work for you and some other people obviously. Whatever your issues or the OP's issues with 3E does not equate to "3.5 is agreed to be a generally near-impossible system to fix, at least without serious overhaul". That is the "universal truth" I object to. 3E is not a horrible game that's need to be made unhorrible.

[Drachasor]

If druid and monk in the same party doesn't work for you, so be it, but that's all it means. It doesn't work for you and some other people obviously. Whatever your issues or the OP's issues with 3E does not equate to "3.5 is agreed to be a generally near-impossible system to fix, at least without serious overhaul". That is the "universal truth" I object to. 3E is not a horrible game that's need to be made unhorrible.

Suppose there are laws that are horrible unfair, but they don't affect you. Does that mean they don't need to be fixed?

Suppose there's a vending machine that is broken and won't accept coins. You always use bills. Does that mean it doesn't need to be fixed?

The laws in general or that vending machine could be good otherwise. Just because something has broken elements doesn't mean it is horrible overall. It just means it has broken elements. Just because you don't run into the broken elements or you are unusual enough to have players that don't care doesn't mean there are no broken elements.

[ryu]

Or to put the analogy more bluntly considering the number of horrifying things the unbalanced system has done to various groups of friends over the years: Imagine a new flu shot is developed that only needs to be taken once in a lifetime to avoid any and all instances of the flu. Now imagine this this flu shot has the unfortunate tendency of causing people with a certain blood type to develop horribly painful facial pimples that need to be painstakingly popped one by one. As the new flu shot is incredibly efficient it's generally considered to be worth the effort to iron out the defect.

[Darth Stabber]

Suppose there are laws that are horrible unfair, but they don't affect you. Does that mean they don't need to be fixed?

Suppose there's a vending machine that is broken and won't accept coins. You always use bills. Does that mean it doesn't need to be fixed?

The laws in general or that vending machine could be good otherwise. Just because something has broken elements doesn't mean it is horrible overall. It just means it has broken elements. Just because you don't run into the broken elements or you are unusual enough to have players that don't care doesn't mean there are no broken elements.

There is a big difference between an unfair law and a broken machine. The broken soda machine is a far better analogy in this case. If you have bills, and the soda machine doesn't accept coins, it is fine for you to use, just remember to bring bills. If something is broken like that, use the workaround.

[Drachasor]

There is a big difference between an unfair law and a broken machine. The broken soda machine is a far better analogy in this case. If you have bills, and the soda machine doesn't accept coins, it is fine for you to use, just remember to bring bills. If something is broken like that, use the workaround.

Doesn't mean it doesn't need to be fixed. Work-arounds do not imply things are ok, but rather the opposite.

And I never said the scale of the law. Perhaps it is just requires the police yell really loudly at jay walkers for 10 minutes. Or that the DMV take 10 times as long to process things on a Tuesday.

[Darth Stabber]

Doesn't mean it doesn't need to be fixed. Work-arounds do not imply things are ok, but rather the opposite.

And I never said the scale of the law. Perhaps it is just requires the police yell really loudly at jay walkers for 10 minutes. Or that the DMV take 10 times as long to process things on a Tuesday.

But as a private citizen, the only thing you can do about a law is petition/protest, and as a consumer, the only thing you can do report the broken machine. But in the case of a broken machine you are not going to stop using a soda machine that is on your way to work just because it won't accept coins, especially if you have to go out of your way to get to another soda machine. And in all fairness, no rpg is perfect, all of them have some broken parts. To extend the metaphor, maybe the other machine only accepts coins and not bills. If you have bills and not coins you are going to use the first machine.

[eggynack]

There is a big difference between an unfair law and a broken machine. The broken soda machine is a far better analogy in this case. If you have bills, and the soda machine doesn't accept coins, it is fine for you to use, just remember to bring bills. If something is broken like that, use the workaround.
Yeah, this seems true. In this scenario, Navar's method would be to bring coins to the machine every time, which is a valid solution, but requires some amount of continual effort. Some people are going to have a big pile of coins in their house, and can continue through their lives completely unaffected, and some people only have dollars, and need to go to a nearby convenience store to get quarters every time. The OP's method is to fix the machine, so that you can bring quarters or dollars at your own discretion. This method makes the effort frontloaded, so that you get your optimal situation immediately in every game. It's ridiculous to assert that the vending machine (or the game) doesn't have problems with it, because it clearly does. Not everyone is going to hit those problems, because everyone in the group likes wizards anyway, or because the group's adventures are all about roleplaying, or because the group is unoptimized. What's crazy is coming into a thread dedicated to fixing those problems, and ranting about how the problems don't exist. It's just pointless.

[Grod_The_Giant]

3E is not a horrible game that's need to be made unhorrible.
Agreed. It's a decent game that can be made better, and trying to make it better is a game in and of itself.

[Demidos]

So we seem to have decided that:


1) Everyone sees that the game is imbalanced as it stands at the moment.


2) There are three stances

It is the duty of the players to fix the game through their playstyles.
It is the duty of the DM to cater to the player's needs and use his powers to keep the game fun.
The game works, but it would be much better if it could be somewhat better balanced (to one degree or another -- if we spend too much time balancing it, it becomes this little thing I like to call "Fourth Edition".).


The original idea behind this thread was a quick and easy way to rein in the worst excesses without exhaustive banlists, which would probably make the game quickly un-fun.

So. For those with the third stance. Did it work?

[Drachasor]

But as a private citizen, the only thing you can do about a law is petition/protest, and as a consumer, the only thing you can do report the broken machine. But in the case of a broken machine you are not going to stop using a soda machine that is on your way to work just because it won't accept coins, especially if you have to go out of your way to get to another soda machine. And in all fairness, no rpg is perfect, all of them have some broken parts. To extend the metaphor, maybe the other machine only accepts coins and not bills. If you have bills and not coins you are going to use the first machine.

[Emphasis Added]

And as a gamer you can fix the rules.

[Talya]

So. For those with the third stance. Did it work?

No. The partial gestalt and the spell limits are mutually exclusive of each other.

With the spellcasting limits, tier 1 and 2 classes become Tier 3 (and some of them, very low tier 3s. Sorcerer's and favored souls might even become tier 4.) Basically, they'd all get to gestalt with NPC classes. Druids (still) and Bards would rule the game (Druids would have a choice of becoming skill monkeys with expert, or wildshape terrors with warrior, while all bards would have full BAB and d8 hit dice), and they'd ALL be gestalting. None of them would match the power of the previous tier 2s, though.

[Demidos]

No. The partial gestalt and the spell limits are mutually exclusive of each other.

With the spellcasting limits, tier 1 and 2 classes become Tier 3 (and some of them, very low tier 3s. Sorcerer's and favored souls might even become tier 4.) Basically, they'd all get to gestalt with NPC classes. Druids (still) and Bards would rule the game (Druids would have a choice of becoming skill monkeys with expert, or wildshape terrors with warrior, while all bards would have full BAB and d8 hit dice), and they'd ALL be gestalting. None of them would match the power of the previous tier 2s, though.

Its true I didn't address whether they previously higher tiered classes would get gestalt or not. Not sure whether to make it so or not. I don't really see a problem with it, seeing as it mostly rounds out characters, rather than makes them noticeably more powerful.

While your point with Bards remaining powerful is valid, do note that the previous specialized casters (of the Beguiler's ilk) are now among the only ones that can still cast 9th level spells. I would argue that Beguiler and Dread Necromancers, at least, would be on a par with those previously mentioned.

Druids would gain little from gestalt with warrior other than a little more BAB (as their fort saves and HD are already at par) and skill points, while extremely useful, are not often used for increasing power directly, except in the case of a specific build. Still, it seems a lot of people are against the druid's current power level. Despite that, I still think a dread necromancer or beguiler would overcome, if not crush them.

In response to it not fixing the game, if casters do become T3 as expected, and all builds are guaranteed at least the power of a T4 (if they don't already have a T3) to gestalt with, wouldn't that already set most people between the bounds of T3 and mid-high T4? Seems like it works to me. What did you still have a problem with? :smallconfused:

I find it interesting that no one mentioned that spontaneous casters now cast at the same levels as prepared. Is that something that needs fixing?

[Talya]

I find it interesting that no one mentioned that spontaneous casters now cast at the same levels as prepared. Is that something that needs fixing?

No, they never should have been behind tier 1s to start with. What would need fixing is their spells per day. A sorcerer should cap at 50% more spells per day than a generalist wizard.

(That might partially address the problem that the bard is basically a sorcerer with a better hit die, BAB and actual class features in your fix...give the sorcerer a reason to exist.)

[Demidos]

No, they never should have been behind tier 1s to start with. What would need fixing is their spells per day. A sorcerer should cap at 50% more spells per day than a generalist wizard.

(That might partially address the problem that the bard is basically a sorcerer with a better hit die, BAB and actual class features in your fix...give the sorcerer a reason to exist.)

Will fix in a sec.

(Actually. Well. Okay, two ways to see this. 1) The sorcerer still gets a far better list to choose from. 2) The sorcerer also gets to gestalt, If we go by the recalculate-tiers-before-applying-gestalt approach. Actually, if it gets dropped to T4, that would actually allow it to gestalt with something BETTER than that which the bard gets. Which would make sense, as its class features are suckier.)

[navar100]

The vending machine isn't broken. You just need to plug it in.

[eggynack]

The vending machine isn't broken. You just need to plug it in.
The game is clearly incredibly imbalanced. Just like whole piles worth of it. It may not be a problem for you, but it's a problem for a whole bunch of folks. If you dispute that, you should take it to another thread. If you don't think that can ever be an issue for anyone, that's just absurd. Sometimes monks and druids can live in harmony together, despite the monk being inferior to a couple of the druid's class features on their own. To assert that this is a thing that always happens is actually objectively untrue. A good amount of the time, the party druid is going to completely overpower the party monk, and the monk's player is not going to be OK with that. More importantly, it's not up to you to dictate everyone's opinion on everything. The game is broken for a whole bunch of people, and for many of those people, it's worthwhile to fix it.

[Big Fau]

And as a gamer you can fix the rules with regards to your playgroup/sphere of influence.

Fixed. Even the best homebrew isn't accepted by everyone, and the same can be said of some of the best rules the game has to offer. Complacency and credibility are things, after all.

[TuggyNE]

The vending machine isn't broken. You just need to plug it in.

Avoiding balance problems in 3.x games is non-trivial in the general case; there are simply too many instances where someone can stumble across an unexpectedly powerful option, or combination of options, and throw things out of whack. "You just need to plug it in" implies that there's a simple, half-hour-at-most fix to essentially all the problems, which just isn't true.

And before you ask, no, the Gentlemen's Agreement doesn't solve things in half an hour; rather, it gets everyone to agree to solve things as they come up, which might take rather a lot longer than half an hour total.