Wondering some opinions on 3.5

[slaydemons]

My question to a lot of the people here is, I know mostly everyone has something about the 3.5 system that irks them to no end, what are those reasons? Specifically I want things that could be fixed, not stuff like "combat is the main focus." Or paraphrasing someone I know "you aren't anything special in 3.5, exalted is better."

[EisenKreutzer]

Honestly, 3.5 is fine. Some classes are kind of boring, and a few are tragically underpowered (Fighter), and the system experienced a serious feature creep towards the end, with so many books of Feats, Spells, Base Classes, PrCs and alternate rules that it becomes rather unwieldly unless you are either a) some kind of autistic savant or b) very selective with what suplements you allow at your table.

I prefer Pathfinder though, because some of the rules (Grapple and Skill points for example) are more elegant and the Base Classes have gotten a new coat of paint and spinning rims.

[Cloud]

Hrmm...well I suppose these a technically fixable, but it might not be possible/worth the effort it would take to just learn a new game. Anyway, things that irk me off the top of my head;

- Spell casters being better at everything than non-casters, even at the things that non-casters are the 'experts' at while also getting to stop time, create planes, and contact gods.
- Most classes don't get enough skill points.
- Being good at a skill means nothing next to most spells (see point 1 I suppose).
- Win initiative, win rocket launcher tag, win the game.
- Mundanes can't have nice things (see point 1 again, really).
- Far too many trap options.
- Somewhat related to the above, but many feats are awful when some feats are really good and most builds only get 7 feats.

[slaydemons]

I actually prefer 3.5 skills over pathfinder. Also yeah the fighter is underwhelming. Also the reason I am asking this is because I am making a game based off the OGL of the d20 system and I want to know what sort of stuff to fix, I am already working on the magic fix and the Mundanes being boring. I am also trying to work on the attitude of "Solo wolf" some classes seem to want to play. I wont disclose anything yet because I don't want to advertise something half finished.

[Snowbluff]

3.5 is brooooooooke. :smalltongue:

Anyway, I like having fewer skills in PF, but I don't like how CC skills work.

[slaydemons]

3.5 is brooooooooke. :smalltongue:

Anyway, I like having fewer skills in PF, but I don't like how CC skills work.

Yeah I like that too.

[HaikenEdge]

Or paraphrasing someone I know "you aren't anything special in 3.5, exalted is better."

You absolutely are something special in 3.5; you just don't start as something special.

[Yawgmoth]

Alignment, above all others. There's no benefit to using it and it's a godawful way of describing motivations. At least in WoD you get willpower back for playing your nature/demeanor or virtue/vice. And then of course there's the endless arguing about it because shockingly, behavior is a nuanced thing that is actually influenced by events and circumstances!

[slaydemons]

You absolutely are something special in 3.5; you just don't start as something special.
This is true but I always like lower levels anyways, and this is something I want to keep in my game, you're special but not special where everyone is lesser then you.


Alignment, above all others. There's no benefit to using it and it's a godawful way of describing motivations. At least in WoD you get willpower back for playing your nature/demeanor or virtue/vice. And then of course there's the endless arguing about it because shockingly, behavior is a nuanced thing that is actually influenced by events and circumstances!
This is going to be fixed, it will be based upon your overall behavior and how people perceive you like in fallout three their reputation system.

[NoACWarrior]

For me 3.5 is unnerving because of the optimization ceiling. With the right builds you can become the best of the best in a few aspects, even better than demi-gods.

Also if you don't optimize and go for flavor, you greatly hamper your build. It sucks in that to be effective you give up a bunch of flavor or are forced to optimize.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

For me, I think it's the work:payoff ratio. This holds true for building a character and for playing a session. I've gotten twice as much enjoyment out of game sessions in other systems that were half as long.

[FullStop]

The assumptions the designers make in what does and does not need to be committed to the written word in order to have a functional set of rules. The gaps they've left as a result can become quite frustrating.

[Snowbluff]

You absolutely are something special in 3.5; you just don't start as something special.

Pfft, says you. I'm leaving and taking my flaw bonus feats with me. :smalltongue:

[slaydemons]

Pfft, says you. I'm leaving and taking my flaw bonus feats with me. :smalltongue:
Thats something I definitely want to fix, flaws should be overall negatives. As such you may gain a feat but it should overall it will screw you over, not be a minor setback

[Snowbluff]

Thats something I definitely want to fix, flaws should be overall negatives. As such you may gain a feat but it should overall it will screw you over, not be a minor setback

Pfft, it should not. People should just start with 2 more free feats, if anything. :smallbiggrin:

[slaydemons]

Pfft, it should not. People should just start with 2 more free feats, if anything. :smallbiggrin:
heh, seems a bit too strong to have 3-4 feats at level 1

[squiggit]

-Minor, but skill consolidation should be better. Perception being split into three sub skills and stealth being cut in half just make characters have to spread out their stuff and make skill point allotments extremely deceptive to players (8+ for rogues looks way less awesome when 6 or 7 are devoted just to your basic functionality)

-All flavors of caster vs noncaster stuff. You fight as well as the fighter, skill as well as the skillmonkey, and get to tweak reality at will on top of that. Ugh.

-Lots of options that trick the players. It's just too easy to build something tha looks good but doesn't play well even when it seems like it should. Tying into this is an overall lack of playstyle options for a lot of characters.

-Tying into the first and third one... Lots of characters (mostly noncasters) have very little customization at all. Having tons of bonus feats sounds like a fun way to build your own fighter from the ground up... Realizing that half your feats need to be spend on the same tree no matter what your build is because everything else is even more terrible not so much.

-Also minor but... A lack of feats is really annoying. There's hundreds of feats in 3.5 and without class features... You don't even get 10. That's just lame. For everyone. Especially when, as said above, you have so many necessary feats. Oftentimes certain classes might end up with only one or two feats they can actually choose in an even moderately optimized build.


"you aren't anything special in 3.5, exalted is better."
Someone's never played high level dnd. Exalts flatline too fast.


Alignment, above all others
Honestly most of the reasons listed here seen more like user issues.

[EisenKreutzer]

Honestly, the largest flaw pf 3.5 in my eyes (which is also the largest flaw of he entire D&D family) is how the game is two thirds tactical miniature combat game and only one third roleplaying game. Five foot steps, cones, move actions, charges, flanking... In my experience it eats away at the roleplaying until we are all just rolling dice and counting hit points and /day powers. And thats fun! Sometimes. When I play D&D I play to kill people and take their money. But it doesn't really scratch my story telling itch as much as other games do.

[jedipotter]

Not enough near epic mundane stuff. They just kinda forget mundanes even exist.

Not enough non combat stuff for mundanes.

Too many skill points.

Too many dead levels.

Weapons that just do damage with almost no other effects.

Insanely low benefits. Like you get a ''+1'' to AC for every four levels...so at 20th you will have, wow, ''+5''.

[Ansem]

You absolutely are something special in 3.5; you just don't start as something special.
And there is E6 if you want to stay that way.
Really, what makes 3.5 work for me is that it's a solid game, rules are broken but at least there are rules, which per group can be used as guidelines or not. The flexibility in these rules is also relieving sometimes when playing with different groups.
It's also the pinnacle of D&D for me, each edition since 1st improved on the previous one and made it a better experience, until 3.5, which is at the top of the mountain. 4e and next are horrible. Really in my opinion there are only 2 types of 4e players, people who got introduced to it and don't know better (rare, many newcomers steer away from it, at least in my country) and people who were never smart enough to grasp 3.5 or previous editions.
The reason I pick it over Pathfinder is because I find Pathfinder breaks more than it fixes, the class skills have more cases where they don't make sense than when they do and it feels too tailored for people who couldn't do character building.
Most hilarious in personal experience is people reasoning Pathfinder is better because 3.5 makes you too overpowered, then complain how all classes are stronger, you get more feats and a Barbarian can do 60 damage a round at lvl 4.....


The amount that 3.5 gives you in material is enough to have a different experience each time.
If you want it it's there, one way or the other. And this freedom together with our desire for not being restricted by the limits of a videogame engine and that we wish to roleplay persona's (not videogame characters! with powers/x....) in a fictional world is why most of us play D&D after all.

[Snowbluff]

heh, seems a bit too strong to have 3-4 feats at level 1
Well, if anyone thinks level 1 is/should be boring, this is why. :smalltongue:


Too many dead levels.

This is actually a discredited trope. "Dead levels" don't really exist in any of the well developed class (T3 classes, any spellbook or spontaneous class, initiators). Between class features, skills tricks, feats (from my favorites list, of course), and spell/maneuver/invocation/power selection, you're going to have a choice to make every level unless you're playing a bad class.

Need I remind everyone that under the "dead levels" articles, Monk is the best class because it has something to look forward to each level.


Insanely low benefits. Like you get a ''+1'' to AC for every four levels...so at 20th you will have, wow, ''+5''.
:smallconfused:

You know how big +5 is when you're in the AC range of being hittable, right? This is Magic Vestments. I call it "My Buckler and Empyreal Buckler are +5 and I paid pennies for them!"

[EisenKreutzer]

Soulborn has tons of dead levels, as do some other weak classes. Which is why it's a problem. The fact that Tier 1-3 classes don't have dead levels isn't really an argument against this.

[squiggit]

Need I remind everyone that under the "dead levels" articles, Monk is the best class because it has something to look forward to each level.

But monk actually does have a lot of cool design elements though and fun class features. The mechanics are just horribly screwy in most of the major components. So I'm not sure that's the best comparison.

[Snowbluff]

Soulborn has tons of dead levels, as do some other weak classes. Which is why it's a problem. The fact that Tier 1-3 classes don't have dead levels isn't really an argument against this.

You shouldn't be playing a T5 class, then. This is a curse you're inflicting on yourself. I exist free of the superficial concerns. :smallsmile:

[Eldest]

Soulborn has tons of dead levels, as do some other weak classes. Which is why it's a problem. The fact that Tier 1-3 classes don't have dead levels isn't really an argument against this.

But they do. Look at Sorcerer. 19 dead levels. A wizard has 15 dead levels. The issue is also the quality of the "filler".

[Snowbluff]

But they do. Look at Sorcerer. 19 dead levels. A wizard has 15 dead levels. The issue is also the quality of the "filler".

Spell selection, bro. It's a bigger deal for Sorcerers than Wizards, but it's still a decision you're making each level. You've included Wizard bonus feats, but didn't include level feats.

Not to mention that you're forgetting the all-important familiar!

[VoxRationis]

Spells don't count for dead levels.

[Snowbluff]

Spells don't count for dead levels.

Why not? It's something to look forward to. They're part of a growing class feature. A lot of classes have to makes a decision on which ones to grab every level. Every other level you gain the ability to generate new effects.

[squiggit]

Spells don't count for dead levels.

Why not? The whole idea behind complaining about "dead levels" is that you're leveling up and your class isn't giving you anything. Spells are probably the best something that anyone could hope to get. Not sure how that works.

[Ansem]

But they do. Look at Sorcerer. 19 dead levels. A wizard has 15 dead levels. The issue is also the quality of the "filler".
Go play 4e if you're not smart enough to grasp 3e :D

[VoxRationis]

Why not? The whole idea behind complaining about "dead levels" is that you're leveling up and your class isn't giving you anything. Spells are probably the best something that anyone could hope to get. Not sure how that works.

That's what I was saying. I was responding to the idea that sorcerers get 19 dead levels, countering that for all of those levels, they got new spells, more spells/day, and/or spells known. Sorry if I worded it ambiguously.

[EisenKreutzer]

You shouldn't be playing a T5 class, then. This is a curse you're inflicting on yourself. I exist free of the superficial concerns. :smallsmile:

Hehe.

But seriously, thats not an argument either. Yes, playing these classes is a choice. But the fact that they are an inferior choice is presicely the problem. You can't just say "poor classes is not a problem because you can just choose not to play them" because the existence of poor classes and superior classes is what has created the Tier system in the first place, and it is what punishes players for some choices and reward them for others, forcing people into cookie cutter builds and optimization.

If WotC had done their job right, all classes would be valid choices offering equal opportunity to contribute meaningfully and excell. The fact that you can't contribute meaningfully as some classes is the problem, and saying it is a choice (which it of course is) doesn't solve that problem.

[Eldest]

Go play 4e if you're not smart enough to grasp 3e :D

Wow. An insult in two dimensions with a smiley at the end to say "bless your heart" after, without even stating anything in disagreement, just that I'm wrong and stupid for thinking so. Prick.

First, the familiar is the reason the sorcerer has 19 and not 20 dead levels. If you're saying that the familiar's progression is worth calling an otherwise empty level not a dead level, I disagree strenuously: it's not something to get excited about each level. That's, IMO, the definition of a non-dead level: it's something I look forward to getting. The next spell level might work. But wizard level (for example) 6 is less fun. You have 3rd level spells, so you get a few more spells per day, 2 more free spells known, and... that's it.

[squiggit]

You can't just say "poor classes is not a problem because you can just choose not to play them" because the existence of poor classes and superior classes is what has created the Tier system in the first place
But would it somehow magically be a better game if those classes didn't exist?


That's what I was saying. I was responding to the idea that sorcerers get 19 dead levels, countering that for all of those levels, they got new spells, more spells/day, and/or spells known. Sorry if I worded it ambiguously.
Sorry. I read that as they're still dead levels even if you get spells.

[jedipotter]

This is actually a discredited trope. "Dead levels" don't really exist in any of the well developed class (T3 classes, any spellbook or spontaneous class, initiators). Between class features, skills tricks, feats (from my favorites list, of course), and spell/maneuver/invocation/power selection, you're going to have a choice to make every level unless you're playing a bad class.

Need I remind everyone that under the "dead levels" articles, Monk is the best class because it has something to look forward to each level.


Even if you count spells as alive levels. Most classes are full of dead levels where you get nothing more then hit points and skill points. And I count a lot of ''your DR goes up to 3'' as dead too. Getting a minor boost to an ability you already have is just not exciting and should not count as your level up ability. And getting a feat still makes it a dead level, unless you get that feat from your class.

[EisenKreutzer]

But would it somehow magically be a better game if those classes didn't exist?

It would be a more mechanically consistent game, with more meaningful choices and options. So yes.

[Optimator]

I love 3.5. It's the best.


That said, the UA fixes a couple of the few problems I have, such as fractional BAB.

Other problems: Iterative attacks and realism, craft rules, the binary nature of hitting (although it's understandable as table-top games suffer when people are rolling parry chances, block chances, dodge chances, to hit, etc.), mass-combat rules,

[Snowbluff]

It would be a more mechanically consistent game, with more meaningful choices and options. So yes.

Yeah... that's kind of hard to argue with.

[slaydemons]

Also people who are arguing, stop it. I wanted peoples opinions on what they think is wrong with 3.5 if you start an argument this thread will be locked down. Keep calm. I for one like the class system its always been a favorite of mine I personally think alot of classes scream too much "I am a boss lone wolf I don't need a party." so I am trying to make classes that can work well as a team

[squiggit]

Yeah... that's kind of hard to argue with.

I dunno. The remaining rules might be more consistent but it's hard for me to imagine in my head as "fixing" balance by simply removing bad options makes the game inherently better (because you can already play in that way).


Other problems: Iterative attacks and realism
Can I ask what you mean by that? Just curious.

[AugustNights]

My question to a lot of the people here is, I know mostly everyone has something about the 3.5 system that irks them to no end, what are those reasons?

I like 3.5 a lot, but I'm working on a detailed list of house rules (perhaps an overcumbersome amount) to fix the little things I just wish were better.
Here are the things I'm working on:

* Meaningful mundane arms and armor
* Expanded alchemical creations/modifications
* Races that offer more
* Less Tier Variance in Classes
* Worthwhile Feats
* Reduced skill list
* Dynamic Combat Maneuvers

The troubles I have are thus.
Weapons and armor aren't very interesting except for a few go-to selections.
Alchemy is nifty, but not nifty enough.
Races often either don't provide enough to shape a character in a meaningful way, except for a few go-to selections.
Classes don't tend to be as user-friendly as I would like them. Fighters should be good at fighting, etc.
Way too many feats are filler or garbage, though there are some really good ones too.
Skills... I just like less skills to deal with. They're probably fine as is.
Combat Maneuvers (not TOB, but things like Feint, Disarm, Overrun, and the like) must be specialized in for them to see any effective play...

Hope any of that helps.

[VoxRationis]

Isn't a lot of that what 4e did?

[TuggyNE]

Isn't a lot of that what 4e did?

Probably. That doesn't mean that 4e necessarily did them right, or that the other changes it made were worth it; it's possible to agree with many of the goals of 4e without liking the finished product much.

[VoxRationis]

Good point.

[Anlashok]

Plus it's cool to hate.

[Sir Chuckles]

My personal biggest irk with the system is that, while there are many options, so many of them fail to do what they're advertised to do.
Duelist, Monk, and sometimes Fighter are the most glaring examples.

Who was it who said that trap option were wholly necessary, that tricking players into something bad was a good thing? It's those kind of flawed design choices that we could nitpick all day.

With enough finagling and 3.5-3.PF crossovers, you get a pretty great game that you likely won't run into issues with. But I love the system. It fits into my game-play desires, expands them, and is malleable to the point where a dozen different people with a dozen different viewpoints can all sit down and mull about a fictional demonic lair together, all in the name of mutual fun.

[TuggyNE]

Who was it who said that trap option were wholly necessary, that tricking players into something bad was a good thing? It's those kind of flawed design choices that we could nitpick all day.

Monte Cook, but see also this note (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/2498/roleplaying-games/thought-of-the-day-ivory-tower-design).

[Ansem]

Wow. An insult in two dimensions with a smiley at the end to say "bless your heart" after, without even stating anything in disagreement, just that I'm wrong and stupid for thinking so. Prick.

First, the familiar is the reason the sorcerer has 19 and not 20 dead levels. If you're saying that the familiar's progression is worth calling an otherwise empty level not a dead level, I disagree strenuously: it's not something to get excited about each level. That's, IMO, the definition of a non-dead level: it's something I look forward to getting. The next spell level might work. But wizard level (for example) 6 is less fun. You have 3rd level spells, so you get a few more spells per day, 2 more free spells known, and... that's it.

Just because I offend you doesn't mean I'm wrong, but sorry you sadly have to resort to insults because of that. Kind of hypocritical to call someone a prick and then act like one yourself...
I bet if it said it added a dice of damage to some mediocre class feature or added +spellcasting in the class table it wouldn't have counted as a dead level to you, as I can tell from your argumentation.

[Eldan]

Absolute, binary effects. Hate them. All of them. And they come at all levels.

If someone fired Plasma from the heart of the sun at a fire giant, he wouldn't even lose a hair.

If Daedalus and Eitri got together to make a doorlock that would take a thousand years to open with mundane means, a wizard can pop it open with a second level spell in a matter of seconds.

A level 1 Paladin is immune to all fear. If Tartaros, Phobos and Nyx had a meeting with Cthulhu and Nyarlathotep and decided to each cast a fear effect on the Paladin, the Paladin wouldn't flinch. Unless one of them had levels in Dread Witch, in which case their is no way to defend.

Those last things are even worse. "I have immunity to that!" "Haha! I ignore immunity!" "I have superior mmunity to effects that ignore immunity!"

Blergh.

[Person_Man]

stuff like "combat is the main focus."

Combat is not the main focus of 3.5. The main focus of 3.5 is character building. Go thumb through the Player's Handbook and any random selection of supplements. The vast majority of pages are consumed by a huge number of options for created a character. You need to generate attributes, choose a race, choose your class/prestige class progression, choose Feats, choose spell/powers/etc, choose Skills, choose equipment, and create fluff. This process takes hours, and sometimes days. In many cases, players spend more time creating and managing character progression and resources then they actually spend playing the game.

[Eldest]

Just because I offend you doesn't mean I'm wrong, but sorry you sadly have to resort to insults because of that. Kind of hypocritical to call someone a prick and then act like one yourself...
I bet if it said it added a dice of damage to some mediocre class feature or added +spellcasting in the class table it wouldn't have counted as a dead level to you, as I can tell from your argumentation.

You are correct, just because you offended me by implying I am an idiot doesn't make you wrong. Very hypocritical indeed to return an insult with an insult. And I'm afraid I never said you were wrong. That required something other than condescending disagreement in the post. Yes, a die or two increasing of damage is actually good enough to make something not a dead level, though an additional ability at that level would also not go amiss. Sneak attack progression, for example, and a rogue talent or a skill booster. +spellcasting, on the other hand, would not do so.

[Ansem]

You are correct, just because you offended me by implying I am an idiot doesn't make you wrong. Very hypocritical indeed to return an insult with an insult. And I'm afraid I never said you were wrong. That required something other than condescending disagreement in the post. Yes, a die or two increasing of damage is actually good enough to make something not a dead level, though an additional ability at that level would also not go amiss. Sneak attack progression, for example, and a rogue talent or a skill booster. +spellcasting, on the other hand, would not do so.

How is gaining an extra die of damage on a spell due to CL with more spell slots / spells known more of a dead level than just gaining an extra d6 of sneak attack?

[VoxRationis]

Absolute, binary effects. Hate them. All of them. And they come at all levels.

If someone fired Plasma from the heart of the sun at a fire giant, he wouldn't even lose a hair.

If Daedalus and Eitri got together to make a doorlock that would take a thousand years to open with mundane means, a wizard can pop it open with a second level spell in a matter of seconds.

A level 1 Paladin is immune to all fear. If Tartaros, Phobos and Nyx had a meeting with Cthulhu and Nyarlathotep and decided to each cast a fear effect on the Paladin, the Paladin wouldn't flinch. Unless one of them had levels in Dread Witch, in which case their is no way to defend.

Those last things are even worse. "I have immunity to that!" "Haha! I ignore immunity!" "I have superior mmunity to effects that ignore immunity!"

Blergh.

Now, I'll agree that immunities are bandied about a little too much (looking at you, Undead type), but there are good reasons for immunities. Would a fire elemental be burnt by plasma from the heart of the Sun? It's already made of plasma. It might be crushed by it, if enough mass suddenly appeared around it, but it wouldn't be burnt. (I agree with you about fire giants, though, and I also find it silly that two dragons of the same type can't use their most iconic ability against one another.)
As for binary things: How would you handle intermediate steps for, say, attack rolls? Half-damage, 3/4 damage, full damage ranges of beating AC? How would that work for Sneak Attack? How would you do that without making AC even more useless (by extending the range of intermediates upwards of AC) or making mundane combat even harder (by extending it downwards of AC)?

[CarpeGuitarrem]

Combat is not the main focus of 3.5. The main focus of 3.5 is character building. Go thumb through the Player's Handbook and any random selection of supplements. The vast majority of pages are consumed by a huge number of options for created a character. You need to generate attributes, choose a race, choose your class/prestige class progression, choose Feats, choose spell/powers/etc, choose Skills, choose equipment, and create fluff. This process takes hours, and sometimes days. In many cases, players spend more time creating and managing character progression and resources then they actually spend playing the game.
TBH, I think that at least half of those character options, if not more, are geared towards combat usage, however. It's probably two-thirds or three-fourths of them, though. Plus, Combat and Magic are the aspects of the game which get entire chapters devoted to them, and to fleshing out their subsystems.

Combat is definitely the focus of 3.5; if you doubt me, look at the rules necessary to put on a play, and compare them with the rules necessary to fight off a pair of goblins. :smallwink:

Come to think of it, that might be something to explore: is it worthwhile bringing more sophistication to non-combat situations?

[Eldan]

Now, I'll agree that immunities are bandied about a little too much (looking at you, Undead type), but there are good reasons for immunities. Would a fire elemental be burnt by plasma from the heart of the Sun? It's already made of plasma. It might be crushed by it, if enough mass suddenly appeared around it, but it wouldn't be burnt. (I agree with you about fire giants, though, and I also find it silly that two dragons of the same type can't use their most iconic ability against one another.)
As for binary things: How would you handle intermediate steps for, say, attack rolls? Half-damage, 3/4 damage, full damage ranges of beating AC? How would that work for Sneak Attack? How would you do that without making AC even more useless (by extending the range of intermediates upwards of AC) or making mundane combat even harder (by extending it downwards of AC)?

There is some room for immunities, yes. Elementals are one of the few things I'd leave as immune. Everyone else can trade their immunity for, say, resistance 100 or something. Still enough that Fire Giants can swim in magma.

I specifically meant "binary immunities", not all effects that are binary like hit/not hit. There, especially, I don't see a problem. Melee isn't all that binary: it would be if one hit just killed you, but HP are already a gradient.

[Eldest]

How is gaining an extra die of damage on a spell due to CL with more spell slots / spells known more of a dead level than just gaining an extra d6 of sneak attack?

Then we were thinking of different things. I was referring to something akin to the warmage's edge (might have the name wrong). Do extra damage with damaging spells. Above and beyond what the CL boost would give you.

Edit: Eldan, technically anything with fire resistance can swim in lava. (IIRC) That would be another good example of a binary.

[Deophaun]

Now, I'll agree that immunities are bandied about a little too much (looking at you, Undead type), but there are good reasons for immunities. Would a fire elemental be burnt by plasma from the heart of the Sun? It's already made of plasma.
Would a human be hurt by a fist? It's already made of flesh.

Pretty much every single elemental immunity should be changed to resistance.

[Theomniadept]

The thing about 3.5 is that its pros far outweigh its cons, but the cons are pretty sharp and glaring.

For example: 3.5 has a great tier system. Now, a lot of (let's face it) noobs like to complain about tier systems (see: Pokemon), but they really do put actual power and utility into perspective. With the tier system of 3.5 once you understand the system a group of players can have fun at any tier. The counter to this is that the four player party of Wizard, Druid, Cleric, and CW Samurai is going to have the Samurai complaining nonstop about the brokenness of the system. This may or may not entail Stormwind on the part of the CW Samurai player.

In 3.5 you can pretty much do most anything. I say most anything because some concepts that seem incredibly basic just don't work, like Sword and Board combat. Plus, martial characters can in no way compete with spellcasters except for playing Tome of Battle or Chargebarian. Aside from that, many classes, prestige classes, and feats are just 100% useless.

But, if you filter through the garbage and learn from the community how to read the tier list then the game becomes incredibly easy to balance, DM, play, etc.

[Captnq]

My question to a lot of the people here is, I know mostly everyone has something about the 3.5 system that irks them to no end, what are those reasons? Specifically I want things that could be fixed, not stuff like "combat is the main focus." Or paraphrasing someone I know "you aren't anything special in 3.5, exalted is better."

It is perfect in everyway. Nothing is wrong with 3.5.

I ever have a hand sign. I hold up three fingers, then point, then hold up five fingers, then four fingers then make an 'L'.

"3.5 for life"

*Holds out his microphone, then drops it and walks away*

[BWR]

A lot of the 'problems' with 3.5 are an issue of playstyle and basic assumptions about a game rather than the rules.
I'm rather unusual, going by the discussions of the boards, in that I like casters being more powerful than mundanes, just like I want Force Users to be more powerful on the whole than non-Force users in Star Wars or magi more powerful than mundanes in Ars Magica. The problem isn't that they are more powerful, it's by how much, and even this is a matter of playstyle. All players should feel their characters are contributing something to the game.

Do I think some of the mechanics could be better? Yes.
E.g. Fighters are supposed to be about feats, but they've generally gotten an unimpressive selection. You have a couple that are no-brainers for just about any build (Power Attack, for instance, and any multipler for that) and a lot of ones that aren't particularly useful. You're better off with them than without but they hardly make as big a differences as PA. AC quickly becoming almost useless unless you focus overly much on it, absurd skill bonuses and minimal DCs, etc. (in order to combat the weird stuff that Craft DCs lead to my DM instituted a set of house rules where you can easily hit DCs of 60 or higher for crafting magic stuff) - these are all things which I think are issues with the system that could be improved. Most of them don't make too much of an impact on gameplay unless you want it too, just accept that things work a certain way and move on.

There are mechanics which aren't really a problem from a mechanical point of view but which I don't like the flavor of, like ToB or any number of other classes they've introduced over the years like Scout or Factotum. These are easy to ignore in games I run and I just don't use them in games I play in.

The major stumbling block for me is that the system is easily (ab)used to create laughably powerful effects, beyond what the designers (I believe) intended it to do and beyond what I like in my games. Before anyone gets butthurt and invokes the Stormwind Fallacy Fallacy, I'm not falling for the SWF - it's merely a matter of what I like in my games not that minmaxers can't roleplay. The fact that the system can be used in such a way entices certain people to make mechanically better characters than others and can easily lead to some characters regularly overshadowing their party members. Generally I've been lucky in that my players either won't or can't go beyond my comfort zone, and fellow players in other games generally tone down their stuff to only slightly better than the rest of the party, but the times I've actually experienced people making overpowered characters and gone beyond what I like (and am capable of doing) has definitely made the game not terribly fun.

[Eldan]

A lot of the 'problems' with 3.5 are an issue of playstyle and basic assumptions about a game rather than the rules.
I'm rather unusual, going by the discussions of the boards, in that I like casters being more powerful than mundanes, just like I want Force Users to be more powerful on the whole than non-Force users in Star Wars or magi more powerful than mundanes in Ars Magica. The problem isn't that they are more powerful, it's by how much, and even this is a matter of playstyle. All players should feel their characters are contributing something to the game.


We have levels. They are intended as a measure of character power and two characters of the same level should have the same amount of power.
Sure, wizards can have more potential than fighters.There's simply more they can potentially do, as long as the fighters stay mostly mundane (though I'm fine with them doing some pretty damn epic feats later.)
But two characters of the same level in the same party should be approximately equal.

[VoxRationis]

Would a human be hurt by a fist? It's already made of flesh.


The fist is doing bludgeoning damage. It deals damage by virtue of impacting with extreme force. Notably, fire effects, with a few exceptions, do not deal bludgeoning damage. They deal damage by being there and the thing they are next to not being able to handle fire.
Saying the fire would hurt the elemental is like saying that teleporting a fist to land gently on a human foot would hurt it. The human is not affected by the fist being there; they're affected by the force behind its travel.

[Captnq]

Also people who are arguing, stop it. I wanted peoples opinions on what they think is wrong with 3.5 if you start an argument this thread will be locked down. Keep calm. I for one like the class system its always been a favorite of mine I personally think alot of classes scream too much "I am a boss lone wolf I don't need a party." so I am trying to make classes that can work well as a team

Are... you serious?

You ask a question "What sucks about 3.5"

They you say, "hey, no arguments!"

Feelings first, facts follow, dude. This was doomed to become an argument because it's subjective. Don't act all surprised. Here. Let me explain things. I will quote the Noob Handbook.

“Parts of the game were intended to be linear. but that is not how things worked out. You can unknowingly find yourself on the low side of that linear, or way beyond the high side. This is not a closed circuit of rules like Checkers. This is the most massive rule set ever. Here there be Dragons.”
- DM Golem

The Tier System
We’ll go into detail on classes later, but let me mention the tier system. The tier system is both brilliant and idiotic. It is a system for breaking down the classes and rating them in tiers as to which one is more powerful (one is best, six is worst) all other things being equal.

That last part is the important part. For you, the player, it’s useful. For comparing different players to each other, it’s useless. The tier system puts wizards at one and monk at five. Yet, in the campaign I am running, the monk PC is the scariest thing I’ve ever seen. By the rules, I cannot kill her and she mops the floor with everyone. I’ve mind controlled the whole party and turned them against her and she not only won, but took them all alive. I’ve cheated and broke the rules and made monsters ten challenge ratings higher then her and in personal combat she mangles my worst monstrosities. I have literally stripped her of all equipment, dropped her in an alien dimension where reality does not work as intended, and nullified all magic. She never broke a sweat.

Now, when she was playing a wizard, it was ten times worse.

Some players have a gift. A knack for the game. She’s an accountant in real life and worked dealing with state and federal regulations and had to stare down the ATF more then once and won each and every time. (She does my taxes, btw.) Some people are deadly with a spreadsheet and she’s one of them. I don’t care what class or race you give her, she’s going to optimize it in ways that will make you gape and then…

She’ll get bored. Once she’s used a trick or combo, she’s done. It’s lost it’s luster. That’s what makes her so nasty. She never looks back. Never does the same thing twice. Once she comes up with something, I can prepare against it, but she never uses it again. We joke she’s kind of like Doctor Who. Unarmed, outgunned, outmatched, you still know the bad guys are going to lose. It’s not in the script, it’s just what she does.

This might be you. You might never reach this level of nerdvana. My point is, the tier system is only good at comparing the classes to each other. The mistake people make is to compare them across players. I’ll put my group of five players up against any other group of eight on the planet because my players are a lean, mean, optimized dungeon crawling machine.

What’s this got to do with the tier system? People are going to try to tell you to play X or be a Y because someone else told them that this was the way to play. Sometimes not knowing something won’t work is good, because you don’t know you can fail. It isn’t all about the best PC, because if it was, everyone would play Pun-Pun and be done with it. It’s a balance between teamwork, power level, optimization, and style. I got one player who couldn’t optimize his way out of a paper bag, but nobody makes the group fall down laughing more then he does. He also has the record for most resurrections with the same PC. So go look at the Tier System thread sometime, but take it with a grain of salt.

That about sums it up. Nothing is wrong with the system. NOTHING this huge and sprawling could possibly be error free, but for the size and complexity, it works just fine. I've actually been thinking of a complete rules rewrite. but I was going to do it piece meal. Open source it completely and see if I can get anyone else to sign on. Frankly, I've been spending years doing data analysis on 3.0/3.5 and if anyone knows how to tweak things to make things more "balanced", well, I'm just the arrogant bastard to take a shot at it.

For example, when was the last time anyone bought a +2 weapon? You buy +1 and use GMW. Why? Because there's no reason to EVER buy up your EB. That's a fact of the game. What if GMW only increased to hit and damage? What if all those Weapon Special Abilities improved with the amount of Enhancement Bonuses you have on your weapon? People mock a flaming weapon for the pathetic 1d6 damage. What if as you increased the damage as EB went up?

People say Spellcasters rule and melee drools, well, that's true. Playtesting for years now has proved it. Maybe it's time for a slight tweak to encourage the warriors to start using weapons again.

THAT is why 3.5 rules. Because I can do that. Because I can write an entire 300 page PDF about Weapon Special Abilities, release it, and people will go, "Huh. Great idea... BUT..." and tweek it further. It lives. It breathes. It changes. It adapts. It's not just a game, it's a Meme. It has an energy of it's own and as people continue to play, the game continues to slowly evolve and grow and change. This isn't something 4e could do. You can't control a self-evolving game. WotC tried to do that and they strangled it. I have no reason to suspect they managed to figure that out for D&D next.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

Are... you serious?

You ask a question "What sucks about 3.5"

They you say, "hey, no arguments!"
Do be fair: this is what the OP actually said...

I know mostly everyone has something about the 3.5 system that irks them to no end, what are those reasons?
Not "why does 3.5 suck?", but "what in 3.5 bugs you?" It's a very important difference, and it's probably the reason this thread hasn't been locked yet. It's a very simple call of "what are the wrinkles, the warts, the rough edges of 3.5 for you?" Because no matter how devoted one is to this particular edition, there are still things that they'd like to fix. That's what the OP is surveying for.

Getting into edition wars is pointless arguing that would also qualify this thread for a lock, as I recall. (And we've already had some angling for an edition fight, earlier in the thread.) That's what the OP wants to avoid.

[Soarel]

>Spellcasters are OP as all hell

>Dead levels where nothing happens

>Grapples and bull rushes are useless

>The Conga Line of Death: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvfkzMeSGfQ

>No Spelljammers o*^*o

Of course most of this is fixed in Pathfinder...except still no spelljammers o*^*o

[Snowbluff]

Hehe... I have mad respect for Spoony, but he really doesn't understand 3.x that well.

And dead levels weren't really fixed. Fighters got some really crappy... pieces of crap. They put numbers where they should have gotten class features. If numbers counted, why wasn't BAB counted?

[BWR]

We have levels. They are intended as a measure of character power and two characters of the same level should have the same amount of power.
Sure, wizards can have more potential than fighters.There's simply more they can potentially do, as long as the fighters stay mostly mundane (though I'm fine with them doing some pretty damn epic feats later.)
But two characters of the same level in the same party should be approximately equal.

And here's where I disagree with you. A Fighter fights and that's it. A wizard can do anything she has in her spellbook. I'm perfectly fine with this. They should be fun to play and feel they can contribute to the game, but that's the limit of the balance that need (should?) exist. Of course, 'can contribute' and 'fun to play' are subjective terms and will vary from person to person - some will feel if they can't do everything everybody else can, preferably better, they aren't having fun or contributing much. Other people will be fine so long as they can do one particular thing better than anyone and not mind sucking at everything else. Some people are fine no matter what so long as they have impact on the talky scenes.

[Eldan]

I'm just saying that people of the same level should be roughly equal in power. Not versatility, necessarily, there's no way a fighter will beat a wizard in that and I'm fine with it. I know that I've said that tons of times, but:

Fafhrd does not adventure with Raistlin Majere. He adventures with the Grey Mouser. Cohen the Barbarian does not go travel with Coin the Sourcerer, he goes traveling with Rincewind the Wizzard who can't cast spells.

Or in other words: The toughest guy of the village should not go solve problems with the local archmage, he should go solve problems with the smartest guy in the village.

There's room in D&D for all power levels. That's what makes the system great. But if you have one character whose powerset is "I hit things with weapons" and one whose powerset is "I change reality with a wave of my hand", something has gone wrong.

Make the curves more equal. If you want a gritty, mundane fighter, have him accompanied by a mage of relatively low power. There's still things he can do other than flying, throwing fireballs and summoning angels.
What does the average wizard do in low-magic fantasy stories? He knows the ancient languages that mysterious hints are written in. He can draw a circle of salt around the camp to ward off evil spirits while the group is crossing the haunted forest. He can tell that ancient spirits can be laid to rest by burning the body. He can identify ancient artefacts. He can sense magical energies on a door and warn the others of a trap. They brew potions and poultices and help overcome curses.
That's a versatile powerset. But you know what? 90% of that can be covered, in D&D, with a handful of skills. Knowledge, alchemy, spellcraft, healing, decipher script. All iconic for wizards, all very useful, all independent of spells.
Ideally for me? Wizards would learn their first "true" spell at around, say, level 5. At the same time, fighters would just stop relying on things that are "realistic". Discover ancient meditation techniques or awaken their demigod blood or just learn to cleave mountains in half.

Relative power levels are important. The level scale exists in D&D for a reason. And there's no justification whatsoever for a fighter 4 being less powerful than a wizard 4.

[TuggyNE]

Wizards would learn their first "true" spell at around, say, level 5. At the same time, fighters would just stop relying on things that are "realistic". Discover ancient meditation techniques or awaken their demigod blood or just learn to cleave mountains in half.

My preference here is to make the actual Fighter class (assuming there is such a thing) only about five levels long, and require multiclassing/prestige classes to continue. This makes the system's expectations pretty blatant.

[Eldan]

My preference here is to make the actual Fighter class (assuming there is such a thing) only about five levels long, and require multiclassing/prestige classes to continue. This makes the system's expectations pretty blatant.

That works. But then, it seems that many of the base classes in 3.5 are only there to qualify for prestige classes, so a lot of them are only five or six levels long.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

That works. But then, it seems that many of the base classes in 3.5 are only there to qualify for prestige classes, so a lot of them are only five or six levels long.
Speaking of, that's another thing that irks me about 3.P: there's a massive number of character classes, and you can mix-and-match them, and you can put prestige classes on top of them.

And the game still presents the notion that you'll be leveling in a single class.

I'd much prefer to see a game that either had short, modular classes (and a decent number of them) or a larger number of rigid classes (which you could take multiclassing features to augment, like how 4E did it), and consistently followed it through to the end.

[slaydemons]

Not "why does 3.5 suck?", but "what in 3.5 bugs you?" It's a very important difference, and it's probably the reason this thread hasn't been locked yet. It's a very simple call of "what are the wrinkles, the warts, the rough edges of 3.5 for you?" Because no matter how devoted one is to this particular edition, there are still things that they'd like to fix. That's what the OP is surveying for.

Getting into edition wars is pointless arguing that would also qualify this thread for a lock, as I recall. (And we've already had some angling for an edition fight, earlier in the thread.) That's what the OP wants to avoid.

Thanks Carpe this is 100% correct, get out of my mind its not a pretty place, and I think I am seeing a common theme "magic is strong, fighters don't do much." I can't really fix the fighters because I feel any fix I make will make it not a fighter but something else. My fix for mundanes besides giving them all magic is make all weapons that are highly interesting that way even if you are in melee you can do cool stuff, one of my most favorite image is someone getting on a hammer and using it like a ride and slamming into their opponents, and I thought of it before I saw rwby it just helped that one of those characters also does this.

[VoxRationis]

I'm just saying that people of the same level should be roughly equal in power. Not versatility, necessarily, there's no way a fighter will beat a wizard in that and I'm fine with it. I know that I've said that tons of times, but:

Fafhrd does not adventure with Raistlin Majere. He adventures with the Grey Mouser. Cohen the Barbarian does not go travel with Coin the Sourcerer, he goes traveling with Rincewind the Wizzard who can't cast spells.

Or in other words: The toughest guy of the village should not go solve problems with the local archmage, he should go solve problems with the smartest guy in the village.

There's room in D&D for all power levels. That's what makes the system great. But if you have one character whose powerset is "I hit things with weapons" and one whose powerset is "I change reality with a wave of my hand", something has gone wrong.

Make the curves more equal. If you want a gritty, mundane fighter, have him accompanied by a mage of relatively low power. There's still things he can do other than flying, throwing fireballs and summoning angels.
What does the average wizard do in low-magic fantasy stories? He knows the ancient languages that mysterious hints are written in. He can draw a circle of salt around the camp to ward off evil spirits while the group is crossing the haunted forest. He can tell that ancient spirits can be laid to rest by burning the body. He can identify ancient artefacts. He can sense magical energies on a door and warn the others of a trap. They brew potions and poultices and help overcome curses.
That's a versatile powerset. But you know what? 90% of that can be covered, in D&D, with a handful of skills. Knowledge, alchemy, spellcraft, healing, decipher script. All iconic for wizards, all very useful, all independent of spells.
Ideally for me? Wizards would learn their first "true" spell at around, say, level 5.

I actually homebrewed a low-magic wizard with this general concept (though that level of power continues through 20). I disagree with the "level 6 fighter=chopping mountains" idea, though.

[Nightcanon]

Why not? It's something to look forward to. They're part of a growing class feature. A lot of classes have to makes a decision on which ones to grab every level. Every other level you gain the ability to generate new effects.

This is, for me, the number 1 bit of evidence that the designers of D&D didn't really understand what they were doing. Spells are one of the most versatile and powerful things in the game, yet the poor wizard is deemed to be missing out.