The first thing you'd fix in 3.5

[Newwby]

It's become a hobby of mine lately to read homebrew, I seem to do nothing but pour through homebrew by the page every night. I've started work on my own homebrew projects as a result but I thought before I get too far underway I should start a couple of threads about what constitutes good tabletop gaming.

I'm interested to see what the playground, arguably the most impressive D&D community on the web, would change about the titular version?

So - one thing you'd change in D&D 3.5, the most glaring flaw that bothers you personally?

[bekeleven]

You might be interested in the rebalanced compendium (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=2096.0).

If it's any guide, then the first thing to do is delete 95% of all spells.

[Lord_Gareth]

It's become a hobby of mine lately to read homebrew, I seem to do nothing but pour through homebrew by the page every night. I've started work on my own homebrew projects as a result but I thought before I get too far underway I should start a couple of threads about what constitutes good tabletop gaming.

I'm interested to see what the playground, arguably the most impressive D&D community on the web, would change about the titular version?

So - one thing you'd change in D&D 3.5, the most glaring flaw that bothers you personally?

The thing you're very shortly going to learn about 3.5 is that there's no one glaring flaw. The whole game is a gigantic glaring flaw. 3.5 has more problem mechanics than good ones.

[Zero grim]

I'd ad a little label to the front of the PHB that says:

don't take this game to seriously, if you want to try and "win" D&D then know that anything you do no matter how clever no matter how OP can be done by the DM ten times before your character is even born, jsut sit down and have a bit of fun.

then again this label could be added to pretty much any RPG and fix every single flaw perfectly, just sit back have fun and agree what you like and dont take things to seriously.

I've found that its actually easier to design new RPG's then to "fix" broken ones, To me an RPG is a way to tell a story and make jokes around a table for 5 hours and D&D lets me do that so its not broken in my view.

P.S: Move gnomes into the monsters manual and add kobolds to the PHB :P

[ArcturusV]

Probably axe the "Blank check" spells. Ice Assassins, Shapechange, Polymorph, Wish, Gate, etc.

After that? Still a flawed balance, sure. But you're less likely to run into that one joker who wants to 'break the game' when they don't have a standard action blank check to do so. I mean there will always be those people. You can't avoid it really (presuming you're the type who has lots of groups you run/find). But it makes it harder. For everyone out there who can optimize even the Lame into Awesome? There's 20 others who just go "Hurr hurr, shapechange and win" or copy something they saw on the Interwebs and can't think of a way to do it on their own with more limited tools.

[Captnq]

Nothing.

Works just fine, over all.

[eggynack]

I'd keep everything the same, because I like it when things are broken part of the way. Perfectly smooth stuff doesn't catch on as well, because there's not as much to latch onto. As a game designer, if I knew that the game I was making could produce pun-pun, I'd probably hammer that issue out. However, now that it's grown to become a fundamental part of the community, I would never wipe it out of existence.

However, if I could change one thing, I would make some of the imbalance a visible part of the game, rather than something that's only discovered by accident when the wizard casts polymorph. Something like the tier system would be right there in the books, and new players wouldn't be tricked into thinking that monks are good by their many abilities. Maybe there would be a whole section of every class that talks about its power level, and why it works out that way, and maybe there would just be a part of each class that says, "tier one," or, "tier four." Maybe this idea would extend into other facets of the game, like feats and prestige classes, but maybe it wouldn't, because learning for yourself what options are good on a particular class is something that I think is pretty cool. The class part is a necessity though, because it just seems unfair for a new player to be doomed to mediocrity the moment they say, "I think I'll play a fighter."

[ddude987]

I would fix tables to match text and fix other silly misnomers raw creates. Other than that I truely believe the game is fine. There's always a sort of gentlemans agreement at the table. If you want to polymorph and outshine Fred the fighter then the dm can dispel it or if it becomes a serious problem because the wizard is on a power trip sqash them.

[eggynack]

I would fix tables to match text and fix other silly misnomers raw creates. Other than that I truely believe the game is fine. There's always a sort of gentlemans agreement at the table. If you want to polymorph and outshine Fred the fighter then the dm can dispel it or if it becomes a serious problem because the wizard is on a power trip sqash them.
Yeah, some of the stupider book things should probably be made to be less stupid I'm thinking of stuff like drown healing, infinite drowning, monks not having unarmed strike proficiency, that occasional issue where superscript numbers are written as ordinary numbers, and that weird thing where you can PAO into anything forever. Basically, they should change the stuff that pretty much every table either house rules away, or otherwise just never knew about.

[Newwby]

You might be interested in the rebalanced compendium (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=2096.0).

If it's any guide, then the first thing to do is delete 95% of all spells.

#1 on my manifesto was 'balance the casters and the mundanes'. So far I've got potential ideas of 'skill check based casting', 'limited preparing of spells', 'mana based casting'*, 'ability score based casting' (all ideas gleaned from other parts of the forum).

*A note on mana based casting. So far this is my preferred option, I'm a huge fan of powers/power points. The main issue with it is that I really want a system that allows innate mana recovery over time so I can simulate mental health/sanity with it. The specific trouble I'm having is designing an acceptable mana regeneration formula that accepts an attribute other than the mana maximum attribute as a regeneration modifier input (e.g. attribute 1 + class mana die determines mana per level whereas attribute 2 + percentage of character mana total determines total mana regeneration per round). I need a bell curve result but keep ending up with exponential growth on every variant I've tried so far.

Current draft has a system that uses stacking damage (and a threshold) rather than a hit point total (primarily because I myself find it easier to add than subtract on the fly). Part of this system involves a 'mental reserve' (or mana reserve) which is used A) for casting spells and B) for resisting mental effects. It recovers over time but I'm basically trying to simulate 'if you over extend yourself magically you become susceptible to the magic of others'.

Additionally I'm working on concepts that involve all PC characters being some form of spellcaster, however limited. Only NPC's (e.g. commoners and other comparative weaklings) are true mundanes.

Input/other ideas on this subject would be extremely welcome


I'd ad a little label to the front of the PHB that says:

don't take this game to seriously, if you want to try and "win" D&D then know that anything you do no matter how clever no matter how OP can be done by the DM ten times before your character is even born, jsut sit down and have a bit of fun.

then again this label could be added to pretty much any RPG and fix every single flaw perfectly, just sit back have fun and agree what you like and dont take things to seriously.

I've found that its actually easier to design new RPG's then to "fix" broken ones, To me an RPG is a way to tell a story and make jokes around a table for 5 hours and D&D lets me do that so its not broken in my view.

P.S: Move gnomes into the monsters manual and add kobolds to the PHB :P

A good disclaimer! I'll definitely put something similar in the informal 'welcome to this system' part of my notes. Yeah, I've been cracking away at potential homebrew ideas but everything I've attempted so far I've discovered someone has already done better than I could come up with. Then later I've found that the ideas of many don't mesh well together without complicated adjustments. Even if a new system is flawed at the very least it's a different set of flaws that require a different style of gamebreaking.


Probably axe the "Blank check" spells. Ice Assassins, Shapechange, Polymorph, Wish, Gate, etc.

After that? Still a flawed balance, sure. But you're less likely to run into that one joker who wants to 'break the game' when they don't have a standard action blank check to do so. I mean there will always be those people. You can't avoid it really (presuming you're the type who has lots of groups you run/find). But it makes it harder. For everyone out there who can optimize even the Lame into Awesome? There's 20 others who just go "Hurr hurr, shapechange and win" or copy something they saw on the Interwebs and can't think of a way to do it on their own with more limited tools.

This already occurred to me, I'm working on the idea that any previously 'blank check' style spells are split down in to multiple specific function spells. A narrow focus in spellcasting limits, even if it doesn't totally prevent, abuse. It'd be nigh impossible to come up with a perfectly balanced system anyhow.


I'd keep everything the same, because I like it when things are broken part of the way. Perfectly smooth stuff doesn't catch on as well, because there's not as much to latch onto. As a game designer, if I knew that the game I was making could produce pun-pun, I'd probably hammer that issue out. However, now that it's grown to become a fundamental part of the community, I would never wipe it out of existence.

However, if I could change one thing, I would make some of the imbalance a visible part of the game, rather than something that's only discovered by accident when the wizard casts polymorph. Something like the tier system would be right there in the books, and new players wouldn't be tricked into thinking that monks are good by their many abilities. Maybe there would be a whole section of every class that talks about its power level, and why it works out that way, and maybe there would just be a part of each class that says, "tier one," or, "tier four." Maybe this idea would extend into other facets of the game, like feats and prestige classes, but maybe it wouldn't, because learning for yourself what options are good on a particular class is something that I think is pretty cool. The class part is a necessity though, because it just seems unfair for a new player to be doomed to mediocrity the moment they say, "I think I'll play a fighter."

The idea of an obvious tier system or challenge category system appeals to me. It'd serve to balance new players versus old players. I'm trying initially to create an even balance between the base classes (using high tier 3 as a guideline) so that future additions have a median point of comparison.


Yeah, some of the stupider book things should probably be made to be less stupid I'm thinking of stuff like drown healing, infinite drowning, monks not having unarmed strike proficiency, that occasional issue where superscript numbers are written as ordinary numbers, and that weird thing where you can PAO into anything forever. Basically, they should change the stuff that pretty much every table either house rules away, or otherwise just never knew about.

This is an incredibly good point! The next stage of surveying should definitely be about what common house rules exist. I've seen a 'stupid house rules' thread but I've not yet seen a 'communally agreed house rules' thread.

[John Longarrow]

I'd put a giant note at the beginning that states classes are not balanced against each other because each offers different options to the player.

There is nothing wrong with running an all melee game, just as there is nothing wrong with running an all caster game.

Each class offers something different. If you are not having fun, talk to your DM first. If you believe all classes should be able to perform in combat exactly the same, play robotech.

That said, the biggest issue I think 3.5 has is poor editing. A once through that identifies conflicts or poorly worded rules followed by a good run through by a set of rules lawyers should clear up most of the issues.

[Nohwl]

if i was able to fix one thing in 3.5, it would be the amount of book keeping and time to table play classes have. it takes like a week to build something decent for some classes and that's way too long.

[Curmudgeon]

... the first thing to do is delete 95% of all spells.
Yep. Second, I'd change Spot and Listen penalties to reflect real-world perceptual difficulty, rather than the ridiculous linear penalties which make it impossible to see something the size of a mountain from a mile away.

[Fable Wright]

The main problems are the fact that the tier system is not clearly spelled out. The first thing I would do is put a label on each class that names its tier. My advice for spellcasters is to not put wonky requirements on them to keep them from using their abilities reliably. That just adds a few more hoops that you need to jump through to break the game. If you're designing a new game system, just avoid making magic more powerful than mundanes rather than add wonky requirements.

The second thing is cut out most of the fiddly rules, like the subsystems of drowning and such that lead to stupid levels of RAW abuse.

And then I'd see where I am and then work on changing things from there.

Also, just as an FYI, the Legend (http://www.ruleofcool.com/) system was created out of an attempt to fix D&D 3.5. It's something that you may want to look at for ideas of what to change.

[eggynack]

This is an incredibly good point! The next stage of surveying should definitely be about what common house rules exist. I've seen a 'stupid house rules' thread but I've not yet seen a 'communally agreed house rules' thread.
View and behold the thing that is at the heart of your desires: rules as common sense dictates (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=13092074).

[Tyndmyr]

So - one thing you'd change in D&D 3.5, the most glaring flaw that bothers you personally?

The fact that it's out of print.

[Shining Wrath]

My vote?

Having done a bit of sparring over the years, both Strength and Dexterity should affect to-hit rolls and damage rolls. The battle may go to the swift, or to the strong, but especially to those who are both. Fear is when you are up against someone both stronger and quicker than you are.

It would also boost, however slightly, the utility of the melee classes wrt the spell casters.


Yep. Second, I'd change Spot and Listen penalties to reflect real-world perceptual difficulty, rather than the ridiculous linear penalties which make it impossible to see something the size of a mountain from a mile away.

It ought to be R^3 with some sense of subtended angle for the item being viewed. For Listen, though, the problem would be discerning direction, as direction is discerned by the relative amplitude of the sound in your ears and that is insignificant for any great distance.

[Morphie]

I wouldn't change a thing, I love the game as it is, I don't care if it isn't perfect, that's what the house rules are for.

But if I could add something to the books, it would be:
- "If you find a loophole or a way to abuse the rules, use your common sense and think: 'Would I allow this if I was the DM?'. Remember, this is a game, not a competition, you should play it to have fun. All of you."

[Neoxenok]

My issues with 3.5e are more a large number of small and annoying issues, but by and large, it's still my favorite game by a fair margin.

The biggest thing I'd probably change is the lack of 'quadratic' progression of the non-casting classes. That is to say that the "mundane" classes should be much more powerful and somewhat more versatile at mid-higher level play than they are.

The problematic caster spells would come in second.

[shameless plug]I am working on my own version of 3.5 edition and I'd love to hear input about my disjointed ideas.[/shameless plug] (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=297557)

[Honest Tiefling]

The artwork. Except for Pimp Krusk.

[JusticeZero]

First thing I would do would be to rip out most of the classes in it. There are newer ones that have all the feel, twice the flavor, and much better balance now that should be patched in instead.

[Warlok]

I could go on and on with things needing fixed in both 3.5 and Pathfinder. During just about every game session we run into at least one rule interpretation issue using either system. Both rule systems need CLARIFICATION & UNITY in the descriptions. It's all about how crucial numerical rules are presented. How certain bonuses stack or do not stack for example. The rules for these things are spread out all over the place and descriptions of a class ability or a spell, for example, are often imprecise. It would be nice if more examples were given in the books after more complex descriptions just so there is clarity, and also calling out book and page references when mentioning a particular "numerical" rule.
Take the "Summoner" class from Pathfinder for example. Has to be one of the hardest classes to run. I was going to try and create one for a new game we are starting but I gave up before I began. There is just way to much to keep track of.
That being said, the various apps on the market that compile all the PF books into one searchable volume make things way easier, and they are automatically updated with errata regularly, so you know the rules are always the latest version.

Now to give a simple answer to the OP's question... I loved playing Paladins since original AD&D in the 80's. In 3.5, the Paladin was broken. Not enough oomph to stand side by side with Fighters in melee and spellcasting wasn't buffed at all to make up for the feeble combat. In Pathfinder, the Paladin is the best he's ever been... fighters envy my smiting ability and the spells are actually amazing at all levels. Lots of buff and immediate action spells made for the Paladin specifically. Hero's defiance and Paladin's Sacrifice are spells that are amazing and will keep you and your team on their feet even in the most brutal battles. And those are 1st and 2nd level spells!

[Spuddles]

Probably axe the "Blank check" spells. Ice Assassins, Shapechange, Polymorph, Wish, Gate, etc.

After that? Still a flawed balance, sure. But you're less likely to run into that one joker who wants to 'break the game' when they don't have a standard action blank check to do so. I mean there will always be those people. You can't avoid it really (presuming you're the type who has lots of groups you run/find). But it makes it harder. For everyone out there who can optimize even the Lame into Awesome? There's 20 others who just go "Hurr hurr, shapechange and win" or copy something they saw on the Interwebs and can't think of a way to do it on their own with more limited tools.

How the hell is it the player's fault for using polymorph or shapechange?? They're iconic magical powers in fantasy- the wizard vs witch duel in the once and future king is a classic, for instance.

It's hardly the player's fault that MC & crew wrote atrocious mechanics. Trying to put it on your players for using what the system gives them is terrible DMing- either propose houserules or use a different system.

But know that the most egregious shortcomings in 3x arent corner cases or broken combos, they are using spells straight out of the book, as intended. Planar Binding, Gate, Polymorph Any Object- they're written to be stupidly broken. If your game has problems with them, it's not the players at fault- it's the DM.

[ArcturusV]

So I do. I just don't let players have it. Or I change it. That's not really a problem. The problem comes with when you recruit new players. They expect things to work by the book. Particularly if they rolled up a character before talking to you about such issues. People tend to get annoyed on both sides when the DM is shooting down ideas (For possibly good reasons) and when the Players keep bringing in ideas that the DM doesn't want to see in the game and ruin the campaign.

Of course, if you did just fix the obviously broken blank check stuff in the first place... then no one would come knocking at your table expecting to be able to do it, there'd be no disappointment... no needing to rewrite your entire plot because someone decided to become truly immortal and invincible, etc.

Or at least it wouldn't happen as often.

Honestly DMing is hard enough without having to deal with some of those shenanigans (At least dealing with them in a campaign that wasn't built for them).

And that's what the topic was about. What one thing would I change. That's what comes to mind. I don't mind players changing into a dragon and breathing acid at someone. I don't mind players makign contracts with a devil, etc. I do mind the more open ended abuses that can come up at will because it is an "anything" just hanging out there for a player to use, or abuse, at will.

[Spuddles]

So I do. I just don't let players have it. Or I change it. That's not really a problem. The problem comes with when you recruit new players. They expect things to work by the book. Particularly if they rolled up a character before talking to you about such issues. People tend to get annoyed on both sides when the DM is shooting down ideas (For possibly good reasons) and when the Players keep bringing in ideas that the DM doesn't want to see in the game and ruin the campaign.

Of course, if you did just fix the obviously broken blank check stuff in the first place... then no one would come knocking at your table expecting to be able to do it, there'd be no disappointment... no needing to rewrite your entire plot because someone decided to become truly immortal and invincible, etc.

Or at least it wouldn't happen as often.

Honestly DMing is hard enough without having to deal with some of those shenanigans (At least dealing with them in a campaign that wasn't built for them).

And that's what the topic was about. What one thing would I change. That's what comes to mind. I don't mind players changing into a dragon and breathing acid at someone. I don't mind players makign contracts with a devil, etc. I do mind the more open ended abuses that can come up at will because it is an "anything" just hanging out there for a player to use, or abuse, at will.

Yeah I agree with you 100% there.

I like 3.5 cause of all the nutty stuff and its super modular nature. But the goofy presumption that it's all balanced and the laughable "behind the curtain" nonsense pretend to lend legitimacy beyond the game being balanced only around savs, AC, HP, and damage. CR bruiser vs Rogue & Fighter is pretty well balanced. Nothing else really is. Personally, I think glitterdust and grease are fine for a wizard to use. I think those are balanced. What isnt balanced is that the wizard also gets teleport and charm person and shrink item, and fighter gets toughness or weapon focus.

But yes, blank check abilities need removal.

Mundanes need more skills and skill points. I almost always do that- hand skill points out as loot, plot points, or story achievments.

[Honest Tiefling]

How the hell is it the player's fault for using polymorph or shapechange?? They're iconic magical powers in fantasy- the wizard vs witch duel in the once and future king is a classic, for instance.

...Are you talking about the Disney movie, or...? I know that I am going to sound really stupid if it isn't, but I wasn't sure where this came from.

[mabriss lethe]

I'd fix the Truenamer. It's always bugged the heck out of me that the name magic system is so horribly crippled.

[bobthe6th]

Make Tome of Battle+a bit the PHB.

[Weiser_Cain]

Get it all to fit in two books, the Players guide and the DM guide.

[lsfreak]

Outside of the horrendous mess that is spell balance, I'd get rid of immunities, and similar binary win/lose stuff. I'm all for some tactics working poorly against some NPCs/monsters, but blanket immunities is a poor implementation. Freedom of movement, all the many ways to get immune to mind-affecting, undead and death ward making you flat immune to negative levels, etc etc etc.

The other thing is making mundane combat interesting. More combat options (both innate and class-specific), useful things to do with move actions and useful standard actions to go with them, balancing out the horrendously caster-heavy implementation of swift and immediate actions, and adding features to allow or encourage movement during fights rather than punishing everything that isn't charge-pouncing, Travel Devotion, and a few others that are even more obscure.

[Grim Reader]

High-level PrCs for the mundanes. With level appropriate abilities. I tinker with some now and then, at some point they'll be ready for critique.

[danzibr]

Make a dictionary defining all game terms (what exactly is a weapon? A true dragon?) then make comprehensive lists of said game terms when applicable.

[Roguenewb]

Outside of mechanics: TEMPLATING. Not the creation of unique monsters, templating in text. I've never understood, how WotC, who've brought game legalese to near perfect in Magic: The Gathering, have retained so much poor language and colloaqualism in D&D 3.X's run (4s a bit better about this, but for the wrong reasons). Template things so that they read the same, and the nature of the interactions becomes clear. Those little power boxes? Single best part of 4e, hands down.

Inside of mechanics: Remove all the spells that give unrelated capabilities to spellcasters, particularly arcane. Every book about a specific skill set (Complete Scoundrel is perhaps the biggest offender), makes spells relevant to that skill set. Thus, every time a book comes out with stuff about how to be something other than a wizard, wizards get really good at it, because of all the spells that interact with the skill. D'oh.

[Jon_Dahl]

Slower level progression for casters, similar to AD&D 2e.

[Fable Wright]

...Are you talking about the Disney movie, or...? I know that I am going to sound really stupid if it isn't, but I wasn't sure where this came from.

I think it's a One-Winged Angel (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/OneWingedAngel) subtrope specific to Wizards. Disney helped popularize the idea with Sleeping Beauty and Aladdin, and to a significantly lesser extent with Sword in the Stone, but it was around before that (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/OneWingedAngel/ReligionAndMythology).

Standard disclaimer: TV Tropes. It may ruin your life (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TVTropesWillRuinYourLife). Don't clink the links if you don't have a good deal of self-restraint.

[Spuddles]

...Are you talking about the Disney movie, or...? I know that I am going to sound really stupid if it isn't, but I wasn't sure where this came from.

EB White wrote a book of that name. The disney movie is mostly based on the book, minus the strong political themes.

[Shining Wrath]

EB White wrote a book of that name. The disney movie is mostly based on the book, minus the strong political themes.

When my oldest son was 13 I gave him a copy of "Once and Future King". He read it until the cover fell off and bought another. He wrote plays based on the book for drama class.

Dad = win (for once).

[Zaq]

I'd fix the economy. I hate 3.5 magic items. They're awful. I hate how bloody long it takes to shop for a character. I can buy myself a new set of work clothes, head to toe, faster than I can equip a 10th level character I want to optimize and keep for a while. Including time spent on the bus. But the thing is, items aren't just for folks who like to optimize the hell out of everything. They're critically important, and they only become more so as the game progresses. The system expects you to be tricked out in bling, and there isn't an easy way to obviate that.

It almost gets worse once the game starts. When I GM, I am horrible at gold distribution, and the system doesn't help. I reached a point where I just say "okay, you get a visit from the Gold Fairy in the night and wake up with 7,000 gp a pop under your pillows." Breaks the narrative, but better that than breaking the mechanics. A lot of the GMs I've played under aren't any better; it's hard to narratively incorporate the ridiculous wealth PCs need to accumulate into any semi-sane story. Some fail to give wealth entirely, some give it inconsistently, whatever. It gets messy. The system sorta-kinda encourages magic marts at every turn, and sorta-kinda encourages randomly rolled loot, and sorta-kinda encourages having PCs find exactly what they want in a nonsensical treasure chest that the dungeon denizens never think to open and use, and you can rarely trust a GM to make it go smoothly.

And then you have wealth-breaking, intentional and unintentional. You have PCs who craft items, optimized or unoptimized. You have PCs getting loot the GM didn't expect (the classic example being "take the adamantine door off the hinges and sell it to the dwarven smith in the city," but I'm sure everyone's experienced their own twist on it). You have crap like Flesh to Salt (which MOST GMs shut down, but not all do, and the very possibility is stressful). You have PCs who try to rob the royal treasury, who haggle with every shopkeeper, who do everything to end up with as much gold as possible. (That's not to say that those who do are munchkins or acting in bad faith; it's just that there's a lot of ways the wealth system can break, so if you poke it too hard, it can end badly.) You can be rich in gold and not have enough items, you can have so many items that your character is lost in the mess, you can have the fanciest sword and armor and die horribly because you forgot to buy flight, and it's just awful.

The imbalance between classes sucks, but I feel like it just takes a little work and a general agreement not to be jerks to make it at least moderately functional. The economy? Ugh.