In Your Opinion, How Broken Is 3E?

[JNAProductions]

And 3.5, and Pathfinder, etc.

By this, I mean if you sat down a couple of random people new to D&D, with a basic understanding of the rules, would the party function well? Would you get a group of people who could take on level appropriate encounters, or would you have some massive disparities? Would people be underpowered? Overpowered? So on and so forth.

[Urpriest]

3e/3.5/PF aren't so broken that you can't have a reasonable game with them, in particular at low levels. They also aren't (usually) the sort of broken that keeps you from running the rules without online help (unlike some games, which have even worse editing). I'd actually say you might have an easier time doing that with 3e/3.5/PF than with 5e, since 5e's monsters tend to be a bit more unbalanced.

[khadgar567]

depend on people like dm who knows what he doing and people who have basic understandingcuz if dm puts summoner and gestalt on same game its gg

[Flickerdart]

Revised 3rd edition is like an old car - it's charming, comfortable, and if you drive it too fast, the wheels will fall off. Unless you intentionally push it past its limits, things are fine enough.

[Red Fel]

3e/3.5/PF aren't so broken that you can't have a reasonable game with them, in particular at low levels. They also aren't (usually) the sort of broken that keeps you from running the rules without online help (unlike some games, which have even worse editing). I'd actually say you might have an easier time doing that with 3e/3.5/PF than with 5e, since 5e's monsters tend to be a bit more unbalanced.


Revised 3rd edition is like an old car - it's charming, comfortable, and if you drive it too fast, the wheels will fall off. Unless you intentionally push it past its limits, things are fine enough.

Basically these. If you don't overthink things, if you don't try to optimize or "outsmart" the game, if you just keep things simple and use a sort of gentleman's agreement with respect to all manner of shenanigans, the system works alright. Some bumpy patches, but easily addressed by saying, "Okay, let's not try that again, hm?"

Once you get into high levels, high optimization, rigorous RAW review, and things like DCS or drowning, there is a simple metaphor for how broken 3E is. Pick up an egg and drop it off of the roof. Climb down, pick up what's left, and drop it again. Repeat until the egg is whole.

That's how broken it can be. Not necessarily how broken it is, though.

[JNAProductions]

I'm asking, though, about new players. (Which, admittedly, I suppose no one here really qualifies as. :P)

I understand that 3E is perfectly capable of running well when everyone knows what they're doing, but what about people who DON'T know? People who think Evocation is the strongest school and Fighters are on par with Wizards?

[khadgar567]

new player advise
depends on dm

[Flickerdart]

I understand that 3E is perfectly capable of running well when everyone knows what they're doing, but what about people who DON'T know? People who think Evocation is the strongest school and Fighters are on par with Wizards?

These are the people the game was balanced for. Just keep an eye out for the druid discovering Natural Spell, and you'll do great.

[JNAProductions]

These are the people the game was balanced for. Just keep an eye out for the druid discovering Natural Spell, and you'll do great.

Seems legit. Thanks for your answers, everybody!

[Zylas]

I'm asking, though, about new players. (Which, admittedly, I suppose no one here really qualifies as. :P)

I understand that 3E is perfectly capable of running well when everyone knows what they're doing, but what about people who DON'T know? People who think Evocation is the strongest school and Fighters are on par with Wizards?

It works just fine. Arguably, it works even better. My RL DM (who, admittedly, is really good) has two groups. One is us, the "veterans", and the other is a group of total newbies. He tells us the most hilarious stories about them. For example, at one point they tried to save an anthopomorphic ape PC who was in the negatives but stable by hunting down a monkey in the nearby jungle and attempting a heart transplant with a rusty dagger. Needless to say the PC died, but you don't get stuff like that in a game with experienced players and from what I understand those players are enjoying their play a lot. The only downside is that they level a bit slower because people keep on dying.

[Red Fel]

These are the people the game was balanced for. Just keep an eye out for the druid discovering Natural Spell, and you'll do great.


It works just fine. Arguably, it works even better.

These. Again, most of the problems emerge when you think too hard about how all the sausage is made. If you just sit down, shut up, and eat your hot dog, you probably won't die of food poisoning. When you first give a hot dog to a kid, there's a shrug, followed by behavior commonly seen in half-starved wolves. The new guy eats the hot dog, doesn't ask too many questions, and does fine. It's when you have players who've been eating the stuff for years, who one day start to wonder, "Just how many insect parts can they legally have in a sausage?" That's when the problems start to become manifest.

Bunch of newbies? Teach them the mechanics, advise them not to be jerks, and things should go relatively fine.

[Aegis013]

I'm asking, though, about new players. (Which, admittedly, I suppose no one here really qualifies as. :P)

I understand that 3E is perfectly capable of running well when everyone knows what they're doing, but what about people who DON'T know? People who think Evocation is the strongest school and Fighters are on par with Wizards?

Depends on the players. I tend to be able to pick up new systems, find synergistic combos and cause problems from session one.

Most players probably won't see much brokenness until mid-high levels where they may start noticing caster dominance.

[CharonsHelper]

While it has its own issues Pathfinder did a good job of tweaking the earlier levels. There are a few core classes which are rather UP (rogue/monk) but the unchained version mostly fixed them.

So - I'd say that with Unchained summoner/monk/rogue, balance looks pretty good in Pathfinder up through level 10ish. (Around then spells start to break stuff - and not just Shatter.)

Is it perfect? No.

But for a game with as much character customization as it has (which inherently makes balance harder) it's not too bad.

[Cosi]

These are the people the game was balanced for. Just keep an eye out for the druid discovering Natural Spell, and you'll do great.

Also, the power of casters in general can fluctuate massively between levels. If the party Wizard thinks that color spray is the best 1st level spell, he will be pretty awesome for a couple of levels. But if he gets to fifth level and decides to start slinging fireballs, he will become substantially less good.

[CharonsHelper]

Also, the power of casters in general can fluctuate massively between levels. If the party Wizard thinks that color spray is the best 1st level spell, he will be pretty awesome for a couple of levels. But if he gets to fifth level and decides to start slinging fireballs, he will become substantially less good.

That's not really fluctuating with levels. That's fluctuating with player choice. (Usually player skill/knowledge, but sometimes newbies can luck into awesome choices.)

[The Glyphstone]

That's not really fluctuating with levels. That's fluctuating with player choice. (Usually player skill/knowledge, but sometimes newbies can luck into awesome choices.)

I think he's saying the two correlate - as level goes up, the variety of potential player choice goes up, and they could as easily fixate on a good option as a bad one (or more likely a bad one, since the 'bad' spells outnumber the good and tend to be flashier and attention-getting.)

[Eldariel]

If you're looking to run a game for spellcasters with worldshattering power, the system is sublime. For sword'n'sorcery, it's workable but leaves a lot to be desired especially higher up - the Christmas Tree effect in particular is highly troublesome. However, limitations can help; E6 (only using a small part of the level range) or Tier 1-2/3-4/5-6 games (using only a small portion of the available classes) both can make it a lot easier to make the system work across the scope.

Still, as someone whose first game in 3.X was a mixed party game where yours truly was playing a Fighter and the party contained a Cleric and a Wizard, I've experienced even completely inept caster players doing a lot of cool stuff on level 13 while I was thinking about how to get enough magic items (while already way past my WBL, mind) to be able to deal with all my limitations and perhaps even to be able to do their cool stuff. Yeah, their spell selection was very inefficient but they got to switch their spell list daily which eventually began to land them more and more at the more powerful options. Then I've also played a 13+ game where I ran a Dervish and had an Ultimate Magus for a companion: that time we both knew what we were doing and the difference was obvious. Since then I've played a lot of casters and spend more time thinking about how to keep the game fun for everybody than how to make myself useful.

[Necroticplague]

New to dnd doesn't necessarily mean unable to optimize, though. A lot of theeoryOP shenanigans are well beyond the reach of anyone new, but many of the basic optimization assumption/tenants (with which the game is imbalanced related to)s equally apply to pretty much every game. I can actually remember when I was new, and almost instantly found a potent combination that years later I would learn is pretty standard for med-op (fighter and barbarian charged+power attacked while the wizard and sorceror spammed AoE battlefield control spells, like Acid Fog, Cinder cloud, Entangle, and Black Tentacles).

[Elder_Basilisk]

I think 3.0-pathfinder is fairly well balanced for experienced hands and newbies as long as you are not trying to break the system.

Most of the useless and non-functional characters I saw in my years DMing the system were the result of idiots attempting to break the system. They couldn't be satisfied with a wizard or a rogue or a cleric or a barbarian, so they made out of the box choices until they finally succeeded at creating something that sucked. That's not something (IME) that newbies are likely to do. Newbies are more likely to embrace the archetypes and the obvious choices. They won't be optimized and they'll make some strange choices but they are not likely to suck. Sucking takes effort and system knowledge. On the other hand, skilled players who attempt to break the system will succeed, so again it comes down to "don't try to break it and it will work." The same is true for DMs. Advanced half-fiend phasms with clvl way too high blasphemies can easily break the game. But no one is making you create one. Don't break the game and it won't break.

That said, like any system that has a lot of accumulated extra material, it works best with an extensive ban list or relatively narrow limits on source material and a limited ban list. For newbies, limits on source material is probably best. "Core rulebooks" or "Core rulebooks plus Ultimate Equipment" is a lot less intimidating for a newbie than "Core+Completes but minus divine metamagic, persistent spell, arcane strike houseruled to 1/round, etc etc etc etc etc...."

[Cosi]

That's not really fluctuating with levels. That's fluctuating with player choice. (Usually player skill/knowledge, but sometimes newbies can luck into awesome choices.)

It's not a direct result of level, but it's fluctuating over levels. Sometimes someone choosing abilities (essentially) randomly will pick an awesome ability and be awesome for as long as that ability is useful. Sometimes he will pick and ability that is terrible and be terrible until he picks a new ability. It's true that the thing driving the fluctuations is player choice, but the fluctuations happen as the character levels through various ability choices.

[Troacctid]

If the party Wizard thinks that color spray is the best 1st level spell, he will be pretty awesome for a couple of levels. But if he gets to fifth level and decides to start slinging fireballs, he will become substantially less good.
I don't think that's accurate. Besides the fact that a 1st level wizard with color spray is generally less powerful than a 1st level fighter with a greatsword, fireball is a legitimately efficient damage spell and will almost always outdamage the weapon damage of a low-op fighter, ranger, or paladin.

[Gnaeus]

With new players, watch for Druid. Even without natural spell, there is a pretty good chance that the Druid will be as good as the badly built fighter, with a pet who is also as good as the badly built fighter.

While core is very poorly balanced in general, it can be played in a balanced way (healbot clerics and blaster wizards) note that some non-core options which are very balanced in isolation are badly balanced compared with bits of core. For example, the Tome of Battle classes are pretty firmly in the mid range of 3.5. Well built, generally relevant and useful at most or all levels. But they are so easy to build and play that they will blow a poorly built fighter or monk out of the water. This makes many groups think that systems like Tome of Battle or Psionics are poorly balanced, when they aren't, compared with most of 3.5.

[AvatarVecna]

3.0, 3.5, and PF have some broken options, but most of them are things you have to build your character for specifically; they're not the kind of broken option that the game directs people to, but rather a combination of things that you're unlikely to bring about by accident. You don't have to worry about these things: the odds of your newb players surprising you with a Hulking Hurler/War Hulk with a massive strength packing more d6s than your average Shadowrun group, or a Wizard/Shadowcraft Mage abusing Earth Spell and Signature Spell to spontaneously cast realer-than-reality illusions, or even something so mundane as a Swift Hunter with Improved Manyshot and a Splitting Longbow, is pretty low.

No, what you have to worry about is the things that can break the game by accident. The big one that comes to mind, at least for me, is action economy abuse (various forms of minionmancy, Leadership, and/or time magic): whether it's the necromancer and his squad of super-zombies, the druid and her army of summoned bears, a second character, or a spellcaster making good use of things like Contingency or Celerity, messing around with the action economy is the kind of things that can massively unbalance the game without the players even trying to break the game ("I did it because it was cool, I didn't know it would wreck encounter balance"). Other things that can be problematic by accident are spells widely known to be broken or abusable. In particular, Polymorph comes to mind: the power and versatility that spell offers make it a char-op staple for a reason, and even somebody without any particular char-op experience can make good use of the spell.

Mind you, the presence of these things doesn't mean the game is automatically broken: one of my first 3.5 games featured multiple characters with the Leadership feat, a mystic theurge focused on necromancy, a summoner druid, and a sorcerer who spammed Color Spray, Polymorph, and Haste; it was all done without realizing how game-breaking it could be...at least, for us players. The DM understood the game-breaking potential our group had, and worked to make sure the game continued being fun for the Monk and Paladin that were working with the Sorcerer, Druid, and Ascetic Rogue. The presence of these potentially broken elements is easily dealt with by a DM who has some decent char-op chops and knows how to counter or mitigate things without ruining the game for anybody by doing so.

[Waazraath]

I'm asking, though, about new players. (Which, admittedly, I suppose no one here really qualifies as. :P)

I understand that 3E is perfectly capable of running well when everyone knows what they're doing, but what about people who DON'T know? People who think Evocation is the strongest school and Fighters are on par with Wizards?

I never had problems with it, to be honest.

Played (and DM'd) 3.0 and 3.5 with several groups of new players, up to +/- level 10 - 14 highest. In general, the people were smart enough to see quickly that a character like monk or paladin should only be played when rolling really high stats, but who weren't interested in finding "the most powerful" options - they just wanted to play a game. At the higher levels it got a bit trickyer, but never problematic - as long as more experienced players are willing to help the ones who don't want to invest too much time. Ask what somebody wants to achieve / has his/her character do, give some possible options, let the other person choose, etc. As a DM, I once gave all players a custom artifact; all powerfull, and meant to fill in to compensate for weak points in the class, that kind of stuff can also be us to help to keep the balance. Sometimes, folks on forums start yelling about 'dm cuddling' and that kind of stuff, but if you have a bunch of relaxed people who just want to play a game and have fun, it's not felt that way in my experience. But it depends of course, mostly on the people you play with. Much more important than which edition is played.

[Flickerdart]

Druids and necromancers and polymorph are not as big an issue as might seem - they all require encyclopedic knowledge of the Monster Manual, and brand new players might not even know such a book exists. Give the druid an eagle; give the necromancer humans; give the wizard a bear form. The game will be fine.

[Psyren]

And 3.5, and Pathfinder, etc.

By this, I mean if you sat down a couple of random people new to D&D, with a basic understanding of the rules, would the party function well? Would you get a group of people who could take on level appropriate encounters, or would you have some massive disparities? Would people be underpowered? Overpowered? So on and so forth.

This is an understandable hypothetical, but is ultimately meaningless because it's pretty much never going to happen. The way tabletop gaming works is that a small group of people (or even a single person) rolls out a new game to their friends, usually IRL but sometimes nowadays online. Pretty much no D&D/PF group is going to consist entirely of brand new tabletop players with a virgin DM; at best you might get a group where some or all of the players have played some flavor of D&D in the past but are now all coming into a new edition together - and even in that case, the results will depend heavily on their optimization savvy going in.

In short, somebody in the group will have some form of exposure to TTRPGs (if not D&D itself) and that mutes the impact of the mechanics in a vacuum; how well this person can teach the new players and what kind of campaign they run at the outset is going to have a much larger impact on enjoyment of the game than how balanced the mechanics are. And in the end, this is in fact why both 3.x and PF continue to thrive despite strong TO imbalances persisting.

[Cosi]

I don't think polymorph is really that big of a deal. The real abuses are mostly pretty obscure, and require pretty significant rules knowledge. For the most part, spending a standard action to turn into a Wolf or a Bear or whatever is not a really big deal.

[eggynack]

Druids and necromancers and polymorph are not as big an issue as might seem - they all require encyclopedic knowledge of the Monster Manual, and brand new players might not even know such a book exists. Give the druid an eagle; give the necromancer humans; give the wizard a bear form. The game will be fine.
Kinda, but also kinda not. It's very possible for someone to play in a perfectly balanced way, but it only takes a decent pile of good finds to make such a character really strong, and the way casters operate enables them to swap to said really strong form with great ease.

[Telonius]

Druid and Monk are the two big pitfalls for mid-levels. Both are okay enough at the lowest levels. Yeah, there are win buttons for some of the spellcasters, but they're kind of hard to stumble on by accident. There are lose buttons, too, but those are equally easy for anybody to step in. It's only after the first few levels that the differences start to become really apparent.

For lowest-level pitfalls, the worst are Bard and Sorcerer. Keep a very close eye on the spell selection. A Cleric or a Druid who screws themselves over can just wait a day and pick new spells. Wizards too, to a lesser extent. But any class with a Spells Known list should have at least some supervision, or they're liable to do something silly like taking all random/weird spells and nothing that actually helps the party.

[The Glyphstone]

I remember my group, back in middle/high school, figured out some of polymorph's more ridiculous implications by example - they fought a hydra, nearly got TPKed, then later the sorcerer asked about the possibility of turning the rogue into a hydra for extra sneak attacks.

Sure, it's no Chronotyryn/Zodar abuse, but it was a huge power multiplier.

[CharonsHelper]

I don't think polymorph is really that big of a deal. The real abuses are mostly pretty obscure, and require pretty significant rules knowledge. For the most part, spending a standard action to turn into a Wolf or a Bear or whatever is not a really big deal.

Polymorph & Summon Monster spells aren't an issue because they're the most powerful spells in the game (especially in PF which nerfed the worst of polymorph) - they're issues because they invalidate the existence of the group's martial.

If the wizard is casting Save or Death / Save or Suck spells of craziness, he still benefits from a martial bodyguard. Summon Monster is him making his own bodyguards, and polymorph means that he doesn't need one at all.

[evangaline]

In my personal experiency I find that you have to go out of your way and use material from multiple sourcebooks to break the non-magi classes in dnd 3.5. Without a little research the magi will of course have more, and better, options later in the campain. In my eyes it's mostly up to the players: If they want to break the game they can.

It's also important how your party looks at the concept of power: Magi do have more options then mundanes, but mundanes have a tendancy to do more hp dmng until level 11. This is when the obvious save or lose spells come into play. Very few campains reach level 11.

If you are looking for a dnd-like game to play with new people, play 5th edition. It's easier, and it has improved on some aspects of 3.5 (and became less good on other aspects, but that is one hell of an interesting debate for another time)

Edit: polymorph etc, are not powerful when playing with new players. Figuring out which forms are mechanically strong takes research.

[Kelb_Panthera]

This is an understandable hypothetical, but is ultimately meaningless because it's pretty much never going to happen. The way tabletop gaming works is that a small group of people (or even a single person) rolls out a new game to their friends, usually IRL but sometimes nowadays online. Pretty much no D&D/PF group is going to consist entirely of brand new tabletop players with a virgin DM; at best you might get a group where some or all of the players have played some flavor of D&D in the past but are now all coming into a new edition together - and even in that case, the results will depend heavily on their optimization savvy going in.

In short, somebody in the group will have some form of exposure to TTRPGs (if not D&D itself) and that mutes the impact of the mechanics in a vacuum; how well this person can teach the new players and what kind of campaign they run at the outset is going to have a much larger impact on enjoyment of the game than how balanced the mechanics are. And in the end, this is in fact why both 3.x and PF continue to thrive despite strong TO imbalances persisting.

You'd think this would be the case and most of the time it is. However, it's not unheard of for a group of complete newbs to spontaneously enter the hobby either. Two or three times in the last month or so we've had newb DM's in exactly that scenario come to the forum to ask for help.

[Barstro]

Point by point.


1) if you sat down a couple of random people new to D&D, with a basic understanding of the rules

2) would the party function well?

3)Would you get a group of people who could take on level appropriate encounters

4) would you have some massive disparities?

5)Would people be underpowered? Overpowered? So on and so forth.

1) If they are completely new to the game, it would be horribly slow. Instead, I'm going to assume that the DM has some idea and is quickly able to explain rules (but not strategy).

2) Well? Sure. But not efficiently. I think that four random people will build four individual characters and have no real idea of interaction between them. I think that the "roleplaying" part would be minimal.

3) Same as above. It would take a bit of time before they figured out how rogues can get the extra d6s.

4) Magic users would be worthless, since it takes a bit of time to understand which spells actually work best.

5) I think that everyone would be underpowered at first. Mundanes would be the first ones to "figure it out" and rise to their true, albeit low, potential. After a few sessions, there would be a greater understanding of how magic works.

I am of the opinion that 3e and its descendants are not broken. Adding in all sorts of splat-books and random extras that the authors never figured out could be utilized a certain way or have consequences with other spells is what breaks the game.

As an aside; if you "sat down a couple random people new to D&D", they would get up and find something else to do. We are a unique bunch. :smallsmile:

[Gnaeus]

Druids and necromancers and polymorph are not as big an issue as might seem - they all require encyclopedic knowledge of the Monster Manual, and brand new players might not even know such a book exists. Give the druid an eagle; give the necromancer humans; give the wizard a bear form. The game will be fine.

I'm pretty sure my PHB gives a list of options for animal companions. You don't need an encyclopedic knowledge of anything to realize that a wolf, bear or tiger is likely to be a better fighter than an eagle. It follows my minimum optimization standard, which is to say that my 10 year old daughter can pick up the PHB and without trying make Druid choices that far outclass a low op fighter. Certainly my group realized Druid>>> Fighter long before anyone read a guide or checked forums. It might have had something to do with my DMs realization that every fight had to have 2 monsters. One for my Druid/bear and bear pet, and one for the rest of the party combined.

[Flickerdart]

I'm pretty sure my PHB gives a list of options for animal companions. You don't need an encyclopedic knowledge of anything to realize that a wolf, bear or tiger is likely to be a better fighter than an eagle.
Which is great if your goal is to have a fighter. But a low-op player might say "but we already have a fighter, his name is Sir Robin and he has a chainmail and sword. I'mma get myself this cool bird because it can fly."

[Gnaeus]

Which is great if your goal is to have a fighter. But a low-op player might say "but we already have a fighter, his name is Sir Robin and he has a chainmail and sword. I'mma get myself this cool bird because it can fly."

He might. But once he realized that a flying pet that can't talk and is really dumb isn't very helpful, he can just switch it out. And in any event, if the obvious choice (like taking a combat animal, or giving your barbarian a 2handed weapon) is also the best (or in the case of the Druid, least balanced) you are likely to end up with balance issues by accident, let alone if the player in question is remotely trying to build a strong character. Sure, the Druid MIGHT take nothing but divination spells. But A he probably won't do that and B if he does he is able to correct his mistake vastly more easily than the fighter can fix his bad feat choices.

[Elder_Basilisk]

He might. But once he realized that a flying pet that can't talk and is really dumb isn't very helpful, he can just switch it out. And in any event, if the obvious choice (like taking a combat animal, or giving your barbarian a 2handed weapon) is also the best (or in the case of the Druid, least balanced) you are likely to end up with balance issues by accident, let alone if the player in question is remotely trying to build a strong character. Sure, the Druid MIGHT take nothing but divination spells. But A he probably won't do that and B if he does he is able to correct his mistake vastly more easily than the fighter can fix his bad feat choices.

1. This little "Druids rock; fighters suck" discussion is specific to 3.5. The balance of pathfinder druids (and 3.0 druids for that matter) is noticeably different. For that matter, not being able to fix your fighter is not as true in pathfinder as it was in 3.5 since fighters get to retrain their fighter feats like sorcerers can retrain spells. The fighter who picked cleave in pathfinder without realizing that it's terrible past level 5 (and it is in Pathfinder--Pathfinder Cleave is one of the very noticeable changes) can probably trade it out at level 6 and take Furious Focus or something useful instead. It's not quite as RAW easy as picking up a new animal companion but it is less subject to in-game situations (many DMs would not have a polar bear randomly wandering a desert just because the druid wants to switch from an eagle companion to a bear).
2. The discussion vastly over-estimates the effectiveness of a low-op druid and under-estimates the effectiveness of a low-op fighter. Newbies and people without system mastery generally don't make anti-op fighters. A low op fighter who has, for example, a longsword and heavy shield and weapon specialization, etc plus power attack is generally able to hold his own and is noticeably better than a no-effort druid animal companion. The druid's bear may get better if barkskinned, greater magic fanged, animal growthed, etc but A. that is not a no-effort, no system mastery druid anymore, and B. It still has a number of significant and noticeable weaknesses (material and alignment DR, fire elementals, flying opponents, among other things shut down the animal companion much more emphatically than the fighter who can have special material and aligned weapons, isn't using a natural weapon, and can pull out a bow and use it with some effectiveness).

[Malimar]

The first druid I ever played with had little system mastery. She primarily used a bow and hardly ever used spells, and she didn't have an animal companion. (Well, she did, but it was a Medium Viper, and the DM confused animal companions with familiars and didn't understand size categories so he said "it's medium for a viper", and so it was too little to be effective in combat. Point is none of the players at the table had the system mastery to correct the DM.) The most effective thing she did was she started turning into a boar once she got wildshape.

Second druid I played with literally never used her wild shape (too confusing for her) and prepared almost exclusively blasting spells, but at least she got to use her animal companion. She still wound up being more effective than most (but not all) of the party.

Basically what I'm saying is that Druid is too complicated for real newbies to completely understand, and is therefore balanced at low-op levels of play with the more straightforward mundane classes.

This holds true for most aspects of 3.5/PF. As observed upthread, fighters and fireballin' wizards and other low-op things are what the game was balanced around. I usually play at a medium-op level, and the game works pretty well there, too, though it works better if the DM at least re-feats monsters instead of using them straight out of the box. High-op is where joy goes to die less balanced but can still make for a fun game for those who enjoy that sort of thing.

[Malroth]

Point the fighters and monks towards warblades and swordsages, allow rebuilds when somebody feels they're too weak and keep an eye on anyone who takes item creation or metamagic cost reducers.

[Gnaeus]

1. This little "Druids rock; fighters suck" discussion is specific to 3.5. The balance of pathfinder druids (and 3.0 druids for that matter) is noticeably different. For that matter, not being able to fix your fighter is not as true in pathfinder as it was in 3.5 since fighters get to retrain their fighter feats like sorcerers can retrain spells. The fighter who picked cleave in pathfinder without realizing that it's terrible past level 5 (and it is in Pathfinder--Pathfinder Cleave is one of the very noticeable changes) can probably trade it out at level 6 and take Furious Focus or something useful instead. It's not quite as RAW easy as picking up a new animal companion but it is less subject to in-game situations (many DMs would not have a polar bear randomly wandering a desert just because the druid wants to switch from an eagle companion to a bear).

Yes and no. Yes, PF makes it easier to retrain virtually everything. And yes, PF Druid is far harder to optimize than 3.5 Druid, so Druid is no longer your problem child in PF.

OTOH, In 3.5, I don't expect to see a newb fighter walking around next to a newb warblade, totemist or other solid, high optimization floor martial, because by the time Wizards knew how to build a martial they were sticking them in obscure splatbooks. In PF, where they are all sitting on the same webpage, it is way more possible that you will get a monk and a slayer, or heaven forbid a warlord or daevic, in the same party.


2. The discussion vastly over-estimates the effectiveness of a low-op druid and under-estimates the effectiveness of a low-op fighter. Newbies and people without system mastery generally don't make anti-op fighters. A low op fighter who has, for example, a longsword and heavy shield and weapon specialization, etc plus power attack is generally able to hold his own and is noticeably better than a no-effort druid animal companion. The druid's bear may get better if barkskinned, greater magic fanged, animal growthed, etc but A. that is not a no-effort, no system mastery druid anymore, and B. It still has a number of significant and noticeable weaknesses (material and alignment DR, fire elementals, flying opponents, among other things shut down the animal companion much more emphatically than the fighter who can have special material and aligned weapons, isn't using a natural weapon, and can pull out a bow and use it with some effectiveness).

Not so much. Part of the fighter problem is that since it lacks a clear defining role, you could wind up with almost anything. Yes, the S&B fighter with power attack is probably equal to the druid's wolf. But the TWF fighter probably isn't. The fighter that took combat expertise and improved disarm certainly isn't. And when the druid thinks Bear, its all over.

Special weapons? You are way backward. The newb fighter and the druid both learn they need cold iron or whatever on the adventure. They aren't likely to get that stuff on their own. At that point, the druid can look through his spell book and find an I win button for the next day, and the fighter has to go back to town. Flying opponents? I can't believe that anyone would ever say that fighter beats druid vs flying opponents. Your most likely circumstance is that the pet is useless, the fighter is plinking away for pathetic damage, and the druid is left to do all the heavy lifting in the fight.

Where the real problems come up are battlefield control and action economy. Fighter can do BFC, but it takes optimization chops. Mostly, it NEEDS a way to change size. The low op druid combo, which far outweighs most fighter options, is that the bear or tiger charges, then grapples. If they miss, druid charges, then grapples. While one of them holds down the enemy, the other one makes full attacks against a grappled target. It's not fleshraker+venomfire. But it's super easy, it comes attached with most of the sexy druid pets and forms. And the low op fighter has nothing comparable. Worse, the fighter lacks pounce, which comes standard on many druid pets and shapes, so in the 6-20 range, even with druid unbuffed, the fighter's 1 power attack with the longsword has to compare with 2-6 from Druid and friend (+ probably 2 grapples or trips). And practically, while the druid probably isn't rocking Bite of the WereX, he is a full caster, and is more likely to pock good spells by accident than good feats by accident, if for no other reason than his spell list doesn't evolve once per level, it evolves once per day as he learns which spell suck and tries others. Even picking at random by how cool it sounds, that will eventually get a decent spell list.

[Florian]

And 3.5, and Pathfinder, etc.

By this, I mean if you sat down a couple of random people new to D&D, with a basic understanding of the rules, would the party function well? Would you get a group of people who could take on level appropriate encounters, or would you have some massive disparities? Would people be underpowered? Overpowered? So on and so forth.

Your entire question is fundamentally flawed because you can´t provide an answer what the entire activity is about.

Do we play a game (Rules first)? Do we engage in collaborative storytelling (Content first)? As the name would imply, a bit of both?

A think is "broken" when it can´t be put to a productive use. The thing with the d20 rules is that they are easy to use by themselves but will become problematic when you switch POV based on what you actually need right now, this situation.

[eggynack]

There are two clear forces working in opposition with regards to the druid and others. There is a pile of options that would be trivial for such a character to select at any given moment which would be overpowered or even game breaking, depending on level and other factors. But, at the same time, there is another pile of options that would also be trivial for such a character to select at any given moment which would be of normal or even below par power, again depending on those factors. And a relatively new or unskilled player will have little ability to tell the difference. How big those piles are, and how likely a player is to fall into one or the other to whatever extent, or how problematic it will be if he lands in the OP pile, well, that's up to debate, and it's also up to the individual player. Some players will naturally tend towards weak or strong things, or be more or less curious. And anecdotal cases of players landing in the weak pile aren't really that important. It's expected, in fact, that a good number will be just fine. But there is game breaking available, and anyone can access it.

As for the claim about animal companions, those spells are fine but they're not necessary for companion power. The best part of an animal companion is how free it is, how effective it is on a base level. A riding dog at first, maybe with barding, can compete quite well against a low or even average optimization melee fighter. The same holds true for high and middle end options at each level range, though in a manner that reduces with time, as the druid's other features come into their own. Are there things a companion is worse at? Sure, but it's still a potent force on the battlefield, and one with high replacability. We're not going for perfect fighter here. A solid damage source is sufficient for many purposes, especially when you can back it up with spells.

[RoboEmperor]

Brokeness is the charm of 3E.

You can literally play whatever you want and it'll be fine, as in, anyone can play their favorite weird quirky playstyle and still not be worthless or be overpowered.

In 3E, because of "brokeness" you get crazy characters, like a character pulling out chickens and throwing them as bombs. There's a reason why a lot of people try to emulate super heroes and anime characters through 3.5.

Balanced games, you're basically stuck with normal characters. A guy who beats stuff, a guy who shoots arrows, a guy who heals, and a guy who throws fireballs. Can't do anything else than these in "balanced games". Honestly video games are better than pnp for these type of games.

Balance is created by players. If someone wants a certain playstyle that is too powerful for the group, he finds other ways to weaken his character so that he can still use the playstyle he wants and he won't hog the spotlight.

Unlike most other games of this genre, looking up "meta-builds" and optimized stuff is useless because you can win in less than a minute with that. This promotes player creativity rather than a copy paste of an online build, because like I said, the sheer amount of customization in this game lets a player do anything he wants and still be ok.

It also depends on the people. If a DM wants a lord of the ring campaign he is gonna go ballistic at any quirky or unusual character and is probably better off not using d&d 3.5.

[Gnaeus]

Brokeness is the charm of 3E.

You can literally play whatever you want and it'll be fine, as in, anyone can play their favorite weird quirky playstyle and still not be worthless or be overpowered.

In 3E, because of "brokeness" you get crazy characters, like a character pulling out chickens and throwing them as bombs. There's a reason why a lot of people try to emulate super heroes and anime characters through 3.5.

Balanced games, you're basically stuck with normal characters. A guy who beats stuff, a guy who shoots arrows, a guy who heals, and a guy who throws fireballs. Can't do anything else than these in "balanced games". Honestly video games are better than pnp for these type of games.

Balance is created by players. If someone wants a certain playstyle that is too powerful for the group, he finds other ways to weaken his character so that he can still use the playstyle he wants and he won't hog the spotlight.

It also depends on the people. If a DM wants a lord of the ring campaign he is gonna go ballistic at any quirky or unusual character and is probably better off not using d&d 3.5.

I mostly agree. 3.5s problem is less balance than predictability. It doesn't hurt my feelings that the Druid's pet can be better than the fighter, nearly as much as the fact that you would expect that a class called fighter sounds like it would be among the best at fighting, and it isn't good for character awesomeness/image when Sir Gawain the Bold is not as good as Merlin's pet.

[magicalmagicman]

This is an understandable hypothetical, but is ultimately meaningless because it's pretty much never going to happen. The way tabletop gaming works is that a small group of people (or even a single person) rolls out a new game to their friends, usually IRL but sometimes nowadays online. Pretty much no D&D/PF group is going to consist entirely of brand new tabletop players with a virgin DM; at best you might get a group where some or all of the players have played some flavor of D&D in the past but are now all coming into a new edition together - and even in that case, the results will depend heavily on their optimization savvy going in.

In short, somebody in the group will have some form of exposure to TTRPGs (if not D&D itself) and that mutes the impact of the mechanics in a vacuum; how well this person can teach the new players and what kind of campaign they run at the outset is going to have a much larger impact on enjoyment of the game than how balanced the mechanics are. And in the end, this is in fact why both 3.x and PF continue to thrive despite strong TO imbalances persisting.

There are a ton of virgin DMs out there who only skim the DMG, introduce an ungodly amount of DMPC party members, and railroad the players into a singular linear storyline because they wrote a fantasy fanfic and wanted to recreate it in d&d.

If the players are experienced instead of the DM, they will either bail, or takeover the DMing because the virgin DM is making too many mistakes or doesn't know how anything works, at which point everyone bails because the games are ridiculously boring rule tutoring sessions.

Honestly, new DMs should at least play neverwinter nights 1 or 2 for one playthrough before trying PnP, but that probably won't be enough to teach them that mage armor doesn't stack with regular armor.

[CharonsHelper]

There are a ton of virgin DMs out there who only skim the DMG, introduce an ungodly amount of DMPC party members, and railroad the players into a singular linear storyline because they wrote a fantasy fanfic and wanted to recreate it in d&d.

If the players are experienced instead of the DM, they will either bail, or takeover the DMing because the virgin DM is making too many mistakes or doesn't know how anything works, at which point everyone bails because the games are ridiculously boring rule tutoring sessions.

Honestly, new DMs should at least play neverwinter nights 1 or 2 for one playthrough before trying PnP, but that probably won't be enough to teach them that mage armor doesn't stack with regular armor.

It depends what other games they've played before. I'd been playing 40k for years before I ever played D&D, so the mechanics of a tabletop game weren't a mystery.

[Psyren]

There are a ton of virgin DMs out there who only skim the DMG, introduce an ungodly amount of DMPC party members, and railroad the players into a singular linear storyline because they wrote a fantasy fanfic and wanted to recreate it in d&d.

If the players are experienced instead of the DM, they will either bail, or takeover the DMing because the virgin DM is making too many mistakes or doesn't know how anything works, at which point everyone bails because the games are ridiculously boring rule tutoring sessions.

Honestly, new DMs should at least play neverwinter nights 1 or 2 for one playthrough before trying PnP, but that probably won't be enough to teach them that mage armor doesn't stack with regular armor.

I went the NWN route too so I can vouch for this method, but there are ways into PnP that don't require a videogame. The Pathfinder Beginner Box for instance is a great resource, as is 5e, for growing the hobby. But in general, I still find that at least one person in a group has at least been exposed to tabletop prior to picking either of these up, no matter how slimmed down they are.

[Tiri]

People who think Evocation is the strongest school and Fighters are on par with Wizards?

You know, if you changed that question mark to a full stop that sentence could have a very different (but true) meaning.

[eggynack]

You know, if you changed that question mark to a full stop that sentence could have a very different (but true) meaning.
How's that work? Are you saying that evocation is as good as conjuration, and wizards as good as fighters? Cause they're not. Also, the underlying structure would be really thrown by doing your basic punctuation swap.

[Tiri]

How's that work? Are you saying that evocation is as good as conjuration, and wizards as good as fighters? Cause they're not. Also, the underlying structure would be really thrown by doing your basic punctuation swap.

Not Wizards as in the class, Wizards as in a certain company whose full name starts with that word.

[JNAProductions]

Not Wizards as in the class, Wizards as in a certain company whose full name starts with that word.

I get it now! And it made me laugh.

[Flickerdart]

WotC doesn't think evocation wizards are the strongest wizards. They may have started out thinking that, but we can see that their understanding of the game evolved as the edition went on.

However, evocation wizards are by far the most iconic wizards. To an observer who doesn't understand business decisions, WotC favoring evokers looks like WotC thinking evokers are the strongest.

[Tiri]

WotC doesn't think evocation wizards are the strongest wizards. They may have started out thinking that, but we can see that their understanding of the game evolved as the edition went on.

However, evocation wizards are by far the most iconic wizards. To an observer who doesn't understand business decisions, WotC favoring evokers looks like WotC thinking evokers are the strongest.

Well, it was just a joke, but I would say that while my statement may be less true than it was fifteen years ago, it is still accurate to a large extent. Remember, 'on par' doesn't mean 'exactly the same as'.

[eggynack]

Remember, 'on par' doesn't mean 'exactly the same as'.
What? Yes, it does. Look here (http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/on+par), with, "Equal to someone or something," or here (http://www.dictionary.com/browse/par), for, "A state of equality." You don't need to have the same things, but you need to be as good as the thing you're on par with. Not perfectly, but pretty close.

[Tiri]

What? Yes, it does. Look here (http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/on+par), with, "Equal to someone or something," or here (http://www.dictionary.com/browse/par), for, "A state of equality." You don't need to have the same things, but you need to be as good as the thing you're on par with. Not perfectly, but pretty close.

Which is what I said. It doesn't have to be exactly the same. Very similar, but not exactly the same.

[Flickerdart]

Remember, 'on par' doesn't mean 'exactly the same as'.

I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. What are you referring to?

[eggynack]

Which is what I said. It doesn't have to be exactly the same. Very similar, but not exactly the same.
But they're not very similar. Many other schools of magic have far superior and more versatile spells. Not to the extent that it's typically presented as, cause evocation's got some utility, but it's not on the same level as a conjuration or transmutation, or even an abjuration or illusion. It's probably better than enchantment, and arguably better than necromancy, with divination kinda existing outside the school system for the sort of purpose you'd care about this stuff for.

[Knaight]

There are a number of ways to inadvertently break the game entirely by accident, but it won't break nearly as far as it will when people are deliberately breaking it.

[Tiri]

I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. What are you referring to?

I was attempting to say that WotC, even with the progress they have made, are still, as a whole quite close to from those who believe Evocation is superior and that fighters are as powerful as wizards. Which would make them on par with them.


But they're not very similar. Many other schools of magic have far superior and more versatile spells. Not to the extent that it's typically presented as, cause evocation's got some utility, but it's not on the same level as a conjuration or transmutation, or even an abjuration or illusion. It's probably better than enchantment, and arguably better than necromancy, with divination kinda existing outside the school system for the sort of purpose you'd care about this stuff for.

I honestly do not understand what part of my post you are replying to.

[eggynack]

I think I'm mostly just confused at this point. No idea what anyone's saying anymore.

[Pex]

Sigh.

Here we go again.

To answer the question.

Not broken at all.

The only thing wrong with it is it doesn't satisfy some people's tastes and because it doesn't satisfy their taste they say the game is broken and resent having to make a house rule to fix what they demand be fixed.

Not liking a particular thing doesn't make the game broken. The game does not have to be absolutely perfect in every way in order for it not to be broken.

[JNAProductions]

Sigh.

Here we go again.

To answer the question.

Not broken at all.

The only thing wrong with it is it doesn't satisfy some people's tastes and because it doesn't satisfy their taste they say the game is broken and resent having to make a house rule to fix what they demand be fixed.

Not liking a particular thing doesn't make the game broken. The game does not have to be absolutely perfect in every way in order for it not to be broken.

I don't dislike 3E. I think it's a wild, crazy, and fun system.

But I do think that it's relatively easy to have high-power disparities, especially with newer players, which is an issue. (Though after various responses, it sounds like, barring some bad luck, new players would not experience too much power discrepancies.)

[martixy]

It is not a rigorous mathematical construct so in that sense it can be broken as much as you want it to.

There are ways to make things nonsensical if you dig deep, just based on RAW. Which is why having a rules-overriding DM is part of the rules.

It is highly varied, which is why it can cater to a lot of playstyles and tastes, something that cannot be easily said for any other edition. But as a consequence of accommodating everything to some degree, it doesn't accommodate anything particularly well.

Heck, many of the arguments people levy against it are actually points if favor from my perspective. Such as the possibility of a great power disparity. It means it can accommodate anything from low-fantasy to high-fantasy games and it can add to the enjoyment of the game in the hands of proficient players. You absolutely do not have to have even close to a balanced party, for everyone to be able to have fun.

IMO 3.5 is the upgrade to 5e.

[CharonsHelper]

IMO 3.5 is the upgrade to 5e.

That's why both Pathfinder & 5e are going strong.

Different audiences and/or same audience in a different mood.

[Snowbluff]

Revised 3rd edition is like an old car - it's charming, comfortable, and if you drive it too fast, the wheels will fall off. Unless you intentionally push it past its limits, things are fine enough.

Except it's the only system that you can turbocharge, so...

Basically, it's a feature, not a feature.

[Flickerdart]

Except it's the only system that you can turbocharge, so...

Basically, it's a feature, not a feature.
Just like 3.5, a car engine is essentially a barely-controlled series of explosions.

[Florian]

I think I'm mostly just confused at this point. No idea what anyone's saying anymore.

The usual problem you get when talking about something that is very customizable and lends itself to some tuning. The plain vanilla product and the fine-tuned product are so different, it can actually be considered a crime to act like they´re the same thing.

[eggynack]

The usual problem you get when talking about something that is very customizable and lends itself to some tuning. The plain vanilla product and the fine-tuned product are so different, it can actually be considered a crime to act like they´re the same thing.
I meant more because of the weird and tangled web of implicit attribution. Like, evocation and conjuration being on par was meant to mean that evocation and conjuration were considered on par by Wizards, or something, and that was indicated by the use of the word "wizards" in a place where it wouldn't make grammatic sense for it to take on the the meaning "Wizards of the Coast", unless I'm missing some word stresses that make it make sense. I'm cool with people saying that spell schools are equal. I just then disagree with them and provide evidence supporting that position if necessary. My problem is that I can't tell if this situation is that situation.

[Tiri]

I meant more because of the weird and tangled web of implicit attribution. Like, evocation and conjuration being on par was meant to mean that evocation and conjuration were considered on par by Wizards, or something, and that was indicated by the use of the word "wizards" in a place where it wouldn't make grammatic sense for it to take on the the meaning "Wizards of the Coast", unless I'm missing some word stresses that make it make sense. I'm cool with people saying that spell schools are equal. I just then disagree with them and provide evidence supporting that position if necessary. My problem is that I can't tell if this situation is that situation.Sorry if what I said was confusing. I realise that my statement earlier was slightly gramatically incorrect, but what I was actually trying to say was that the sentence could also be taken to mean that people who think fighters and wizards are equal are on par with the company Wizards, who are known for making unbalanced things. I just happened to read it and actually mistook it for that meaning.

[0Megabyte]

I would point out that 3E isn't very broken at all.

...as long as you ban the Player's Handbook. I'm not joking, either. :smallbiggrin:

[Seppo87]

3.5 is only somewhat balanced if you know what you're doing and you're using the right books.
If you stick with core be prepared to have some classes become useless very soon and the players feel frustrated.

Pathfinder does it much better.
Classes will work mostly as intended and shine in their field.
Use unchained so this will apply to the rogue as well.

[Florian]

Sorry if what I said was confusing. I realise that my statement earlier was slightly gramatically incorrect, but what I was actually trying to say was that the sentence could also be taken to mean that people who think fighters and wizards are equal are on par with the company Wizards, who are known for making unbalanced things. I just happened to read it and actually mistook it for that meaning.

The two words "unbalanced" and "broken" are the actually rankling things here.
The thing is that on a non-system-mastery level, all things are actually equal as the requirements to solve any challenges are actually so low, it doesn´t matter which class is picked or how it is outfitted with items and feats.

If one takes a close look at the official published modules or campaigns, it will become apparent pretty fast that there are practically no requirements or "must-have no-brainers" beyond some basics that nearly any class or build can meet.

In contrast, when we enter the system mastery based arms race of comparing what might could be achieved and set those as standard to engage in meaningful challenges, the game breaks down with the usual well-discussed results.

So we have two data points that we can start any discussion on this from: Either we look at what a CRB could allow, or we look at an Expedition to Castle Ravenloft or Hell´s Rebells to see what is actually happening in the game. The later two, even the most inexperienced new players and GMs will be able to handle.

[0Megabyte]

3.5 is only somewhat balanced if you know what you're doing and you're using the right books.
If you stick with core be prepared to have some classes become useless very soon and the players feel frustrated.

Pathfinder does it much better.
Classes will work mostly as intended and shine in their field.
Use unchained so this will apply to the rogue as well.

That doesn't sound much like the Pathfinder I've read and played.

Are you telling me that wizards can no longer write words that blow people up when they read them, disable entire rooms of opponents with nausea, stop the baddies in their tracks by force of will, turn night into day, raise zombies, fly, breathe water, see through disguises, magically disguise themselves, charm enemies into allies, see the invisible, become invisible, and buff their allies at the same level fighters... get a second attack per round? If they stand perfectly still?

[Seppo87]

In 3.5 if you put a fighter in the same party with a druid by mid levels onward the fighter will not even shine at fighting on top of being outclassed at everything else.
Unless you are using a lot of books and you know what you're doing, that is.

In PF certainly the fighter is still unable to contribute significantly out of combat but in combat it is by default pretty competent and will at least be able to do his job without extreme optimization

[Florian]

In 3.5 if you put a fighter in the same party with a druid by mid levels onward the fighter will not even shine at fighting on top of being outclassed at everything else.
Unless you are using a lot of books and you know what you're doing, that is.

In PF certainly the fighter is still unable to contribute significantly out of combat but in combat it is by default pretty competent and will at least be able to do his job without extreme optimization

If you can´t define what "contribution out of combat" should actually mean, then the whole argument becomes a non-issue.

[BWR]

I have to throw in with the 'it's fine' crowd. Sure, you can if you put your mind to it twist it to a monster, but it works just fine with sensible players, and IME is fairly easy to teach new people.

[OldTrees1]

By this, I mean if you sat down a couple of random people new to D&D, with a basic understanding of the rules, would the party function well? Would you get a group of people who could take on level appropriate encounters, or would you have some massive disparities? Would people be underpowered? Overpowered? So on and so forth.

Sounds like you are asking about the first session/campaign.
We had ~6 players and ended up with both warriors and casters. We only got to level 5 but the party functioned well. I expect we would have seen some massive disparities later, but most of the disparity is locked away by the same ignorance that caused WotC to think healer clerics and evoker wizards were going to be the norm (because that is what happened).

RAW D&D is flawed, but it is not non-functional for groups of all new players.

[CharonsHelper]

Pathfinder does it much better.
Classes will work mostly as intended and shine in their field.
Use unchained so this will apply to the rogue as well.

Use unchained monk too.

Unlike the rogue, the core monk can be made to work with archetype combos, but without any archetypes, the monk is only a hair better than the core only rogue.

If you do that, Pathfinder balance is pretty solid until 10ish.

[Tiri]

In contrast, when we enter the system mastery based arms race of comparing what might could be achieved and set those as standard to engage in meaningful challenges, the game breaks down with the usual well-discussed results.

So we have two data points that we can start any discussion on this from: Either we look at what a CRB could allow, or we look at an Expedition to Castle Ravenloft or Hell´s Rebells to see what is actually happening in the game. The later two, even the most inexperienced new players and GMs will be able to handle.

I see some of the more unbalanced things from Core fairly often in play. The power level in games can range from fighter with Toughness as all feats to optimised wizards. There is no fixed definition of 'what is actually happening in the game'.

[Elder_Basilisk]

If you can´t define what "contribution out of combat" should actually mean, then the whole argument becomes a non-issue.

A lot also depends upon what you want to do outside of combat. In most published or organized play adventures, "out of combat" contributions are largely non-class dependent. You choose what to do, where to go etc. Occasionally you need to make a diplomacy or intimidate check or destroy a bridge or climb a cliff, but that's it. Having a specialist at the diplomacy check/whatever is nice but it's usually doable by a non-specialist with a bit of effort. Occasionally, you find it advantageous to teleport back to Magepoint and confer with Tenser or do some shopping in Niole Dra. But that isn't really a "I didn't cast the teleport, why am I even here?" moment. The teleport could just as easily be cast at PHB prices by a nearby wizard and serves the goals of the whole party. Which party member casts it or if you wind-walk instead is not terribly relevant. A creative player with a lot of spells may be able to create some new options (which may or may not be better for the party), but if you're the kind of players that just follow the plot, the in-group social roles (who has real life leadership and coordination ability) are going to be at least as significant as class abilities for out of combat contribution.

On the other hand if you are playing some sort of semi-independent sandbox game where your spellcasting ability lets you summon or animate an army and build a castle overnight, etc and each character is pursuing their own independent (and possibly conflicting goals), then the limited out of combat options for martial classes is likely to become much more of an issue. (Though in this kind of a game I would expect NPC spellcaster allies, cohorts, and hirelings to even up the options to some extent).

In my experiences, most games are more like published adventures than sandboxes though and the balance issues that Playgrounders go bananas over don't show up in nearly the same way. The balance issues also don't really show up until mid-level (9+ play) and most of the games I've played run at the lower levels 1-12ish. High level play happens but it's a lot more rare.

[Seppo87]

If you can´t define what "contribution out of combat" should actually mean, then the whole argument becomes a non-issue.
Solving problems without swinging sticks

[Flickerdart]

Solving problems without swinging sticks
Good luck winning a single game of baseball with that strategy. :smallamused:

[Troacctid]

In my experiences, most games are more like published adventures than sandboxes though and the balance issues that Playgrounders go bananas over don't show up in nearly the same way. The balance issues also don't really show up until mid-level (9+ play) and most of the games I've played run at the lower levels 1-12ish. High level play happens but it's a lot more rare.
This has been my experience as well.


Solving problems without swinging sticks
My warmage is great at solving problems without swinging sticks. She just throws fireballs instead!

[xyz]

3.5e isnt broken you only hear that from scrubs who can't into making good optimized characters and get rekt at the table. Take yo dice and tears and g t f o --->

[Snowbluff]

3.5e isnt broken you only hear that from scrubs who can't into making good optimized characters and get rekt at the table. Take yo dice and tears and g t f o ---> :smallbiggrin:
the "po" is practical optimization.
git gud, scrubz! do you even po?

[xyz]

:smallbiggrin:
the "po" is practical optimization.
git gud, scrubz! do you even po?

true nuf. if u aint takin 2 flaws then askin ur dm to let u take another 10 for "character building" reasons you are B A D and are holding the group back.

[Snowbluff]

true nuf. if u aint takin 2 flaws then askin ur dm to let u take another 10 for "character building" reasons you are B A D and are holding the group back.

2 flaws
shaky. you don't need a bow
vulnerable. ac is suboptimal.
all of the feats you need
what flaws you got, bitch?

[xyz]

2 flaws
shaky. you don't need a bow
vulnerable. ac is suboptimal.
all of the feats you need
what flaws you got, bitch?

vulnerable, shaky, then good new homebrew ones (cuz core srd is broken rite so homebrew is clearly superior)

1) unpracticed spellcaster: make spellcraft checks at -2
2) arachnaphobia: make saves vs fear at -2 when dealing with spiders
3) old: character is 10 years older
4) mundane: character's spells have -1 to DC
5) nearsighted: character cannot see further than 1000 feet
6) telephatically mute: character cannot use or be affected by psionic force
7) scared straight: character's alignment shifts one towards lawful
8) alcoholic: character must drink daily or take a -2 on will saves vs compulsion
9) elfblind: character does not acknowledge elves.
10) illiterate: character does not start with literacy, like a barbarian.

[Bobby Baratheon]

Don't forget Dwarfism! Half your normal height, no mechanical effects.

[Seppo87]

This has been my experience as well.


My warmage is great at solving problems without swinging sticks. She just throws fireballs instead!
That does not make swinging sticks any more useful out of combat (except well in baseball, as mentioned above)

[Florian]

That does not make swinging sticks any more useful out of combat (except well in baseball, as mentioned above)

You still fail to explain what you see as "solving problems" to actually be.

As has already been pointed out, the official material rarely needs you to mesh mechanical problem with mechanical solution at any point. Most of the time, you´re even supposed to just role-play the solution and that´s it.

So either the original creators of the system don´t understand their job, or the system they created itself offers way more depth than they ever intended to be used at the table.

[Snowbluff]

vulnerable, shaky, then good new homebrew ones (cuz core srd is broken rite so homebrew is clearly superior)

1) unpracticed spellcaster: make spellcraft checks at -2
2) arachnaphobia: make saves vs fear at -2 when dealing with spiders
3) old: character is 10 years older
4) mundane: character's spells have -1 to DC
5) nearsighted: character cannot see further than 1000 feet
6) telephatically mute: character cannot use or be affected by psionic force
7) scared straight: character's alignment shifts one towards lawful
8) alcoholic: character must drink daily or take a -2 on will saves vs compulsion
9) elfblind: character does not acknowledge elves.
10) illiterate: character does not start with literacy, like a barbarian.


Don't forget Dwarfism! Half your normal height, no mechanical effects.
If were going dandi i always get well endowed for optimum evetything size for no penalty

[Troacctid]

That does not make swinging sticks any more useful out of combat (except well in baseball, as mentioned above)
Utility wands are extremely useful outside of combat, so I strongly disagree.

[Seppo87]

You still fail to explain what you see as "solving problems" to actually be.

As has already been pointed out, the official material rarely needs you to mesh mechanical problem with mechanical solution at any point.

Solving problems means achieving goals.

You cannot roleplay into succeeding at skill checks or casting spells that do stuff.
You need the ranks or the ability to cast that spell somehow.

Problem: That treasure is guarded by four lv1 guards and I'm lv1 amd I want that treasure

Fighter: I can swing a stick but it's 4 vs 1 It will not work. Cannot solve this problem
Rogue: I can use stealth or deception and then run. Difficult but I can solve this problem if I roll high enough.
Beguiler: I can make myself look like the owner, if something goes wrong I can make them sleep, or use grease and run, or simply use stealth. Piece of cake!

Different ways of solving problems. The fighter only has "hp depletion" as an option and becomes non relevant when that option is not viable.
Also in 3.5 caster classes are better at that as well making the fighter 100% useless

[xyz]

Solving problems means achieving goals.

You cannot roleplay into succeeding at skill checks or casting spells that do stuff.
You need the ranks or the ability to cast that spell somehow.

Problem: That treasure is guarded by four lv1 guards and I'm lv1 amd I want that treasure

Fighter: I can swing a stick but it's 4 vs 1 It will not work. Cannot solve this problem
Rogue: I can use stealth or deception and then run. Difficult but I can solve this problem.
Beguiler: I can make myself look like the owner, if something goes wrong I can make them sleep, and then use stealth

Different ways of solving problems. The fighter only has "hp depletion" as an option and becomes non relevant when that option is not viable.
Also in 3.5 caster classes are better at that as well making the fighter 100% useless

FighteR: Why are you not using great cleave. Why do you not have ranks in UMD to use wands to back you up. Why are you not Nethack incarnate?

[Florian]

Solving problems means achieving goals.

Actually, you still try to match mechanic with mechanic and that leads to your evaluation of apparent worth.

Mechanics and rules are a tool to help when the actual players involved can´t agree on the general outcome of a thing. You don´t use them if there is no disagreement at any point.

[Seppo87]

Actually, you still try to match mechanic with mechanic and that leads to your evaluation of apparent worth.

Mechanics and rules are a tool to help when the actual players involved can´t agree on the general outcome of a thing. You don´t use them if there is no disagreement at any point.
We are in fact evaluating the system not dm fiat.
The system can be measured and discussed. Your personal preferences or anyone else's can not.
Sure you can tweak and ignore the system but it does NOT make the sistem balanced in itself.

Read "system does matter" if you can, asap

[Florian]

We are in fact evaluating the system not dm fiat.
The system can be measured and discussed. Your personal preferences or anyone else's can not.
Sure you can tweak and ignore the system but it does NOT make the sistem balanced in itself.

Read "system does matter" if you can, asap

I rather think you did´t understand "system does matter" at all.
That is about the design decision to actively think about what you want in your game and create positive feedback mechanics so people will play the game as you have intended, having fun that way.

That is a pretty arrogant stance and actually led nowhere productive while still not providing an answer to the whole role-playing vs. game divide.

[Seppo87]

If the game is mechanically broken and you have to resort to arbitrary patches to fix it, the game is broken.

[Florian]

If the game is mechanically broken and you have to resort to arbitrary patches to fix it, the game is broken.

The problem here is the term "game", you know?

Edit: A game is a finite thing. it has a start, victory conditions, finish and set boundaries. In those boundaries, player agency or creativity don´t matter because those don´t touch on the rules.

D&D/PF is a toy.

[xyz]

The problem here is the term "game", you know?

The problem here is you treat this """""game""""" like a """""""""GAME"""""""""" you can just play with, instead of treating it like what it is: a simulation of an alternate real life. If you die in the game, you die in real life. It's that simple.

[Divide by Zero]

9) elfblind: character does not acknowledge elves.

Totally stealing this one for my next character (which will be an elf, naturally).

[Tiri]

FighteR: Why are you not using great cleave. Why do you not have ranks in UMD to use wands to back you up. Why are you not Nethack incarnate?

Well, the fighter doesn't have a guarantee that he can kill all the guards in one hit. They are the same level, after all. It's likely they will survive the first round even if he wins initiative and then they have four chances to hit him.

With UMD, he still has to afford the wands and make the checks, which will be nigh-impossible with fighter skill points and starting wealth. Being a pseudo-caster with UMD kind of takes away the point of being a fighter in the first place anyway.

Also, what is a Nethack incarnate?

[Eladrinblade]

And 3.5, and Pathfinder, etc.

By this, I mean if you sat down a couple of random people new to D&D, with a basic understanding of the rules, would the party function well? Would you get a group of people who could take on level appropriate encounters, or would you have some massive disparities? Would people be underpowered? Overpowered? So on and so forth.

If you played exactly by the books, no, it's not broken. Now, you'd have to start them at level 1 with no exp, and they'd have to progress at the normal rate (some 13.3 encounters per level, I hear?). By the time they got to the levels where things become problematic, they should know what's up and how to handle it, assuming they read the core books cover to cover.

At level 1, everybody is fine.
At level 3, you start fighting things like dire wolves and ogres, where people clearly start to see how they can be shafted by the rules if they don't play smart and work together.
At level 7, you get things like behirs and hydras, which will absolutely murder one pc per round unless they do everything right (and have strong, focused builds or otherwise get really lucky). But by level 7, they've been through some 75 odd encounters and have been playing for months.

It's harsh, and has bad options they can fall into, but it gives them a way out, as long as they're smart and tactical-minded (and not too proud to change when they're wrong).

I honestly like it just the way it is.

Can't speak for PF though.

[Endarire]

@Flickerdart: Just have your team take hits for singles. You just need enough players to take the hits and you win!

[Seppo87]

The problem here is the term "game", you know?

Edit: A game is a finite thing. it has a start, victory conditions, finish and set boundaries. In those boundaries, player agency or creativity don´t matter because those don´t touch on the rules.

D&D/PF is a toy.

D&D is a game with rules.
You can ignore the rules.
If you ignore the rules, dnd 3.5 may work better or worse.
The rules themselves are severly broken.

[Florian]

D&D is a game with rules.
You can ignore the rules.
If you ignore the rules, dnd 3.5 may work better or worse.
The rules themselves are severly broken.

D&D is not a game. No matter how you look at it, from CRB-only to all published material available, it´s just a smattering of tools and components that you have to assemble the actual game from.

You do the assembly according to what your personal understanding of how a game should look like, which is heavily dependent on how you´ve been socialized into the hobby.
Your opinion of what the game created by using the D&D rules should look like might differ widely from what other people with a different socialization expect that "D&D" would look like.

The rules, then, are only as broken depending on how good or bad they work with the actual game that you want to create based on them.

Edit: Considering that all editions had to create "Beginner Boxes" or some such to showcase what the actual game should be, as that is not included with the Core.

[Shnigda]

If the game is mechanically broken and you have to resort to arbitrary patches to fix it, the game is broken.

Is this not a tautology? You have basically said, "if the game is broken, it is broken"

But I get what you mean, and agree. If the DM or group as a whole needs to resort to homebrewed patches or hand-waving, then the system is broken at some level (though not necessarily on the immediate surface, such as with completely new groups in their first few sessions)

[OldTrees1]

D&D is not a game. No matter how you look at it, from CRB-only to all published material available, it´s just a smattering of tools and components that you have to assemble the actual game from.

Game Design is the school of thought that studies games. That school of thought has multiple definitions of the word "game". I recommend not talking past each other merely for wanting to have your personal definition be the only definition by which the word "game" is used.

Since D&D is a set of modifiable length of modifiable rules by which DM create a campaign to run (the running of which is also called D&D), then we can certainly judge the set of rules by how well they work for DMs to create their campaigns from. Just like we can judge the campaigns by the enjoyment they create. You are right in this regard.

[Necroticplague]

Also, what is a Nethack incarnate?

I assume it's related to the classic rogeulike game Nethack. In this context, it probably refers to being hilariously paranoid types who carry ridiculous amounts of stuff with them for every possible situation. Which is somewhat mitigated by the fact that, at level 1, you don't have the money to be such.

[Seppo87]

judge the set of rules by how well they work for DMs to create their campaigns from.
The set of rules imo is to be judhed by how adeherent is the experience provided following the rules to the stated intent.

Stated intent: challenge rating is a reliable indicator of challenge
Experience provided following the rules: challenge rating is unreliable

Stated intent: rogue is a master of skills
Experience provided: casters are the real masters of skills, without needing ranks, at all levels

Stated intent: reaping mauler is good at grappling
Experience provided: reaping mauler is decent at escaping grapple although FOM does it much better and they have anti synergic class features and a prerequisite that makes the prc stop working when they get large and getting large is the best way to be good at grappling

Stated intent: fighter is the best at fighting (yes it was actually stated, read the epic fighter's description. Don't get me even started on this)

Etc.

3.5 is as broken as a glass that's just been steamrolled.
Pretty much nothing works as intended.
Sometimes rules are so confusing and convoluted that we have contradicting faqs, sage advice, and "rules of the game" web pieces. Not even designers knew what they were doing.

"But dm fiat can fix it"
Sure but the game itself is still broken.

Just because you don't care or you believe you can make it irrelevant it won't become any less true.

[martixy]

Don't forget Dwarfism! Half your normal height, no mechanical effects.

'cept never being able to reach the cookie jar.

[FocusWolf413]

Basically, just don't be a douchenozzle and it's a wonderfully balanced system. Act like a self-centered dummy, and your game will be worse than week old mackerel left out in the sun during a particularly humid week.

[SimonMoon6]

I'm asking, though, about new players. (Which, admittedly, I suppose no one here really qualifies as. :P)

I understand that 3E is perfectly capable of running well when everyone knows what they're doing, but what about people who DON'T know? People who think Evocation is the strongest school and Fighters are on par with Wizards?


Here is my experience when 3e was new:

(1) My first attempt at making a character was a rogue/sorcerer with emphasis on charisma skills. There was no "arcane trickster" in these early days, so it was a plain rogue/sorcerer. But I only got to play him a couple of times. Clearly, I hadn't found anything too broken here, but I noticed some cool AC tricks (shield spell for +7 (in 3.0)). So my next attempt was:

(2) A wizard. And I wanted to see how high his AC could go, since in 1st/2nd editions, wizards usually didn't have such great ACs. I took a level of monk (which would be strongly contraindicated by most optimizers) so I could get WIS to AC and evasion... and then I just kept casting all the spells that boosted AC, and got useful feats like Persistent Spell to keep them going and took Incantatrix levels and... it was all pretty awesome. Then, add Polymorph and AC went through the roof. As did my basic melee combat ability. Once we got a magic spear from a salamander, I even had a good melee weapon to use. And I was better in melee than some of the other characters.

One of the other characters had been made with help from the DM. It was supposedly a super mobile skills guy, but a monk/rogue multiclass was a terrible multiclass combo. This character was utterly useless.

One of the other characters was a paladin. He was utterly useless. He had a griffin mount which was cool, but it kept getting killed.

There was a cleric who... was nothing special.

And... there was some crazy multiclassed archer who was a little bit of everything who did ridiculous damage with his arrows. Of course, he wasn't tier 1 or anything but when it came to mere combat, he killed everything in sight. The monk/rogue and paladin couldn't compete with him at all. They couldn't even compete with my wizard!

So... yeah, with new players, you can totally have completely mismatched unbalanced characters.

Later on, in near-epic levels, my wizard and the archer were able to go on adventures by themselves. We fought a high CR golem from the epic level handbook, with my wizard "tanking" with a crazy AC that the golem couldn't hit, while the archer stayed back and shot at it until it died.

[Sayt]

A friend of mine made a comment which rang true to me. D&D is actually two games (So is Pathfinder, but if I say Pathfinder and D&D are actually two games, that just confuses the matter, because they are very similar in the fact that they are two games)

Part of D&D is dungeon-delving and being Big Damn Heroes saving dragons and slaying princesses evil queens, where everyone has to work together to defeat [Menace].

The other part of D&D is magical God-Kings playing xanatos speed chess.

The Tier 1 classes have (to varying degrees) been given tools to play in both of these games. The 'Martials' have been given the tools to play in one of them.

Unfortunately for the Martials, the game makes a natural progression from one to the other, by dint of the options that got published options. When level 15 rolls around, the fighter and ranger are still getting options to face down combat encounters. Really nasty combat encounters, but combat encounters. Casters are getting spells like Guards & Wards, Greater Teleport or Forbiddance

So there's a fundamental disconnect in what classes are able to. Fighters could have been given feats which let them strike before immediate action teleportation, or hack spells in half, but they weren't.

So as people who enjoy playing martials, who start out contributing in very obvious ways while their friends around the table are also contributing in obvious ways, slowly find that their character is becoming sidelined (unless the GM is very careful) and then they're stuck in the middle of the plot with characters who they're invested in who just...aren't useful, and there is little recourse to actually fix this in progression, because the PRCs that are open to them are often too little too late (most Gishes, and they require casting anyway), or have restricted flavour (Ur-Priest).

That's my 2c, anyway.

[Beheld]

The set of rules imo is to be judhed by how adeherent is the experience provided following the rules to the stated intent.

Stated intent: challenge rating is a reliable indicator of challenge
Experience provided following the rules: challenge rating is unreliable

Challenge Rating is a reliable indicator of challenge. See: All previous arguments about this.

[Leon]

Its as broken or not as you make it. Yes the rules can be taken to extremes and such but are not innately so. There will always be the people who seek to wring the heck out of any rules system to extract maximum advantage from it but for each instance of that there is the people who don't care and just play.

[Zombimode]

Stated intent: challenge rating is a reliable indicator of challenge
Experience provided following the rules: challenge rating is unreliable

What's your definition of "reliable"?
Because to me "works pretty well in the overwhelming majority of cases" sound pretty reliable.



Stated intent: rogue is a master of skills
Experience provided: casters are the real masters of skills, without needing ranks, at all levels

And this is flat-out wrong. Yes, some (not all) casters can replicate some (not all) uses of skills. Pretty much always at a non-trivial cost.


Stated intent: reaping mauler is good at grappling
Experience provided: reaping mauler is decent at escaping grapple although FOM does it much better and they have anti synergic class features and a prerequisite that makes the prc stop working when they get large and getting large is the best way to be good at grappling

Yeah, it's a bad PRC. Take another one. There are lots. Also: FOM does not make you good at grappling.



Stated intent: fighter is the best at fighting (yes it was actually stated, read the epic fighter's description. Don't get me even started on this)

Define "fighting". Hint: its not "dealing with enemies in combat situation".
But ok, it is probably quite possible to find a satisfying definition of fighting. And probably the fighter class can't be used to be the "best" for all of it. But neither could any other class.
So we might have a false assertion here. So what? It doesn't really matter.



3.5 is as broken as a glass that's just been steamrolled.
Pretty much nothing works as intended.

So far, you have provided 4 example of which only one holds any ground. Thats pretty far from "nothing works".


Sometimes rules are so confusing and convoluted that we have contradicting faqs, sage advice, and "rules of the game" web pieces. Not even designers knew what they were doing.

If that would be true, the overwhelming majority of people playing 3.5 need to be geniuses.

[Willie the Duck]

The set of rules imo is to be judhed by how adeherent is the experience provided following the rules to the stated intent.

Stated intent: challenge rating is a reliable indicator of challenge
Experience provided following the rules: challenge rating is unreliable

Stated intent: rogue is a master of skills
Experience provided: casters are the real masters of skills, without needing ranks, at all levels

Stated intent: reaping mauler is good at grappling
Experience provided: reaping mauler is decent at escaping grapple although FOM does it much better and they have anti synergic class features and a prerequisite that makes the prc stop working when they get large and getting large is the best way to be good at grappling

Stated intent: fighter is the best at fighting (yes it was actually stated, read the epic fighter's description. Don't get me even started on this)

CRs are relatively accurate, with notable exceptions (dragons at least being deliberately so). Rogue is very much master of skills, regardless of a (very well planning things out) wizard being able to make those skills potentially irrelevant. Grappling is just as messed up (or more) than it was in all previous editions, so any PrC or build based on it is in fact messed up. The point is ceded. Fighters (along with monks and paladins) are some of the least effective classes, and a whole book was put out to create new versions of them that better conform to the power level that the designers considered baseline play.

And believe me, no one is going to get you started. You seem to have that taken care of.





3.5 is as broken as a glass that's just been steamrolled.
Pretty much nothing works as intended.
Sometimes rules are so confusing and convoluted that we have contradicting faqs, sage advice, and "rules of the game" web pieces. Not even designers knew what they were doing.

An interesting perspective. I don't find WotC's 3e era level of adjudicating "correctness" any worse than anyone else I would compare them to (TSR, Games Workshop, etc.). Especially true given that WotC didn't hew to the "there must by one inarguable RAW" mentality that the internet tried to force upon them. To them, DM fiat was an acceptable answer.


"But dm fiat can fix it"
Sure but the game itself is still broken.

Just because you don't care or you believe you can make it irrelevant it won't become any less true.

I don't think it is the rest of the posters on this thread who are the ones trying to make their opinion objective truth via force of will.

[Eldariel]

CRs are relatively accurate, with notable exceptions (dragons at least being deliberately so).

How can you just say that without even delving into any kind of an analysis? How does that follow from anything presented in this thread? CR isn't even clear on what it's measuring. Is a level 1 Orc Warrior, fully capable of one-shotting any 1st level character on a level where resurrection isn't an option, really alright? Those things are CR ½. CR is some kind of an amalgamation of what's alright for a party to face, what's challenging and what makes for an interesting encounter; a measurement trying to reflect multiple attributes simultaneously with a single numeral value is bound to reflect nothing at all accurately.

CR doesn't account for feats let alone class combinations, even though the danger posed by a Power Attack/Improved Sunder/Shock Trooper/Cleave/Destructive Rage/Intimidating Rage Orc Barbarian/Fighter/Frenzied Berserker is obviously from a different world compared to the Weapon Focus/Alertness/Endurance/Toughness Orc Barbarian. It doesn't even need to be said that one is capable of one-shotting any PC it faces while the other will mostly tickle even on the best of days and neither of them has much in terms of meaningful defense.

The fact that some creatures are listed at lower CR than their challenge intentionally, and others unintentionally, while various enemy formations and advancement rules also lead to ridiculous CR situations. CR is worse than useless. Everything is situational. Combinations have wildly different efficiency levels. It's fully possible to design a level 10 NPC that's twice better than another level 10 NPC in every single trait even though nominally they have the same CR. Same with e.g. advanced Gibbering Mouther which suddenly has ridiculous save DCs, or the various puzzle monsters that can't be defeated. And every spellcaster enemy's CR is directly proportional to the spells they happen to prepare and awfully often they're spontaneous casters capable of preparing whatever the hell they want.

And some effects are either TPK or useless; looking at stuff like Blasphemy for instance. For characters affected by those, they're just screwed. There are precious few defenses for a lower level party. And yet, parties built with them in mind are probably completely unaffected and they don't even register such spells. There's no nice scale of difficulty; a lot of things are either trivial or practically unbeatable. CR assumes that multiple lower level enemies are threat but that completely falls by the wayside with effects and enemies that cease to pose even the slightest threat to the party at a certain point.


The system simply has too many variables and too uneven a powercurve for such a system to properly even exist. For CR to make sense, one level 10 party should have approximately similar capability to the other and yet one level 10 party can be shooting for the stars and fighting gods while the other one is still trying to figure out how to fly.

The very foundation that a CR system that's simple enough to be useful could function in a game like 3.5 is preposterous. No such system could possibly exist. CR is best treated game-by-game and monster-by-monster basis with DM judgment. That's the only way it can work.

TL;DR: CR as a system is both dysfunctional and impossible to make functional in a game like this.

[zergling.exe]

-snip-

CR works for what is was designed for: a low-op fighter, a healbot cleric, a trapfinding rogue, and an evoker wizard. Other combinations may or may not work with CR as written.

[Florian]

CR works for what is was designed for: a low-op fighter, a healbot cleric, a trapfinding rogue, and an evoker wizard. Other combinations may or may not work with CR as written.

This. And it never pretended to be otherwise.

[Eldariel]

CR works for what is was designed for: a low-op fighter, a healbot cleric, a trapfinding rogue, and an evoker wizard. Other combinations may or may not work with CR as written.

That's not the game though - you can't limit options so that players will magically fall in the right tracks or if you do, you've removed all the reason to play a system as expansive as 3.5 in the first place. Low-op in and of itself is nebulous - there are many levels of low-op. And Cleric and Wizard can switch between optimization levels day to day. If CR is only useful for a playtest party, it should only be used with a playtest party. Though I doubt its utility even in such circumstances; even if you eliminate the variety on the players' side, the variety on the monsters' side in things like feat selection, spell selection, class selection, HD, size, items, etc. still exists and will keep throwing CR off.

[Melcar]

And 3.5, and Pathfinder, etc.

By this, I mean if you sat down a couple of random people new to D&D, with a basic understanding of the rules, would the party function well? Would you get a group of people who could take on level appropriate encounters, or would you have some massive disparities? Would people be underpowered? Overpowered? So on and so forth.

Yes, yes they would! All who did not play a tier 1 class would be underpowered, but they would not know that, so the game would be fun!

[Beheld]

CR works for what is was designed for: a low-op fighter, a healbot cleric, a trapfinding rogue, and an evoker wizard. Other combinations may or may not work with CR as written.

No, it actually doesn't. CR would result in that party getting TPKed over and over and over by pathetic challenges. A well built optimized party using mostly good classes is going to conform to CR a lot better.


TL;DR: CR as a system is both dysfunctional and impossible to make functional in a game like this.

Your entire argument boils down to "I can make NPCs that don't conform to CR guidelines for a variety of reasons, that's why the 14 monster books with monsters with listed CRs are all wrong."

If you can't see how that's a non-sequitar, then you are really not going to convince anyone of anything.

Yes, you can make NPCs that are different strengths. You can probably also tell me all about Non Associated NPC Cleric levels for giants, and pretend that's an issue with CR, and not an issue with you pretending that Cleric is non-associated when it obviously isn't.

But the actual CRs of actually existing in assorted Monster books monsters are "relatively accurate" as the quote you dispute claims, and they are "a reliable indicator of challenge" as the original point was claimed they weren't.

[Eldariel]

Your entire argument boils down to "I can make NPCs that don't conform to CR guidelines for a variety of reasons, that's why the 14 monster books with monsters with listed CRs are all wrong."

If you can't see how that's a non-sequitar, then you are really not going to convince anyone of anything.

Yes, you can make NPCs that are different strengths. You can probably also tell me all about Non Associated NPC Cleric levels for giants, and pretend that's an issue with CR, and not an issue with you pretending that Cleric is non-associated when it obviously isn't.

But the actual CRs of actually existing in assorted Monster books monsters are "relatively accurate" as the quote you dispute claims, and they are "a reliable indicator of challenge" as the original point was claimed they weren't.

Feats, spells, HD advancement & magic items exist on monsters as well.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Feats,

Already assigned for most creatures.
spells,

Rare and already assigned in most cases.


HD advancement

Only goes significantly off-target when you're piling on double to triple the original HD; something the MM points out.


& magic items exist on monsters as well.

Almost never. A handful of creatures are listed with any items at all and of those only a fraction are listed with magical items.

Nobody's arguing that the CR system is perfect (it's certainly not,) but you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater in declaring it utterly useless.

[Eldariel]

Already assigned for most creatures.

Feats don't alter CR. The same monster with any feats should be the same CR.


Only goes significantly off-target when you're piling on double to triple the original HD; something the MM points out.

When the monster has HD-scaling save DCs or when size increases are involved, modest changes can be drastic. Same with the relative change in cheap HD particularly on high base HD creatures (any Aberration, Undead or such with Ex/Su-abilities requiring a save is going to become significantly more dangerous at CR or two more HD).


Almost never. A handful of creatures are listed with any items at all and of those only a fraction are listed with magical items.

Monsters should use their treasure where possible.


Nobody's arguing that the CR system is perfect (it's certainly not,) but you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater in declaring it utterly useless.

I have yet to play a game significantly improved by eyeballing CR of whatever you wish to use instead of eyeballing their stats. Indeed, I have never seen a good argument in favor of the existence of a CR system, just defenses against arguments against it. AD&D does just fine without such a system in place, for instance. At least I've yet to hear any AD&D DM complain about lacking a number telling them how hard a creature is to fight. It's pretty apparent off the numbers - CR is at best a learning aid, but one that includes no warnings about dangerous things parties may be ill-equipped to face (e.g. incorporeality, no-save-AOE-disables, high risk of 1-hit KOs, flight or such), so at best a poor one at that.

[Yogibear41]

No, it actually doesn't. CR would result in that party getting TPKed over and over and over by pathetic challenges. A well built optimized party using mostly good classes is going to conform to CR a lot better.




This has been closer to my experience, on average the people that I end up playing with have no idea or next to no idea what they are doing. They make less than mediocre characters who as me and my DM like to say "can't fight their way out of a paper bag" (heard the expression from a guy who use to post on these forums). Then they generally moan and complain that my characters are OP, and then I am generally the only reason we don't TPK on CR appropriate encounters.

I remember one situation, were I was playing one of my least optimized characters: a Paladin of Tyranny, along with a Wilderness rogue friend, and a newer player(had been with us a few weeks) playing a duskblade. He had just make his duskblade we were around level 6, and I tried to give him advice(after he asked me) on good spells he could pick to give him some versatility so he could be useful in several situations, damage, debuffs, buffs, utility, etc. Well he basically ignored me and made a Two weapon fighting guy who more or less picked the worst possible spells of the duskblade list as spells known. He died in the 2nd encounter of the night, after spaming spells like bigby's striking fist(deals non-lethal damage) against undead in the 1st encounter..... then complained that it took him over 4 hours to make his character. :smallannoyed:


The more I have played the game, the more I have come to the realization that if we fight a monster that I can't solo we are all probably going to die. And I like to play the "fighter type" so its that much more of a challenge. :smallsmile:

[Yogibear41]

I have yet to play a game significantly improved by eyeballing CR of whatever you wish to use instead of eyeballing their stats. Indeed, I have never seen a good argument in favor of the existence of a CR system, just defenses against arguments against it. AD&D does just fine without such a system in place, for instance. At least I've yet to hear any AD&D DM complain about lacking a number telling them how hard a creature is to fight. It's pretty apparent off the numbers - CR is at best a learning aid, but one that includes no warnings about dangerous things parties may be ill-equipped to face (e.g. incorporeality, no-save-AOE-disables, high risk of 1-hit KOs, flight or such), so at best a poor one at that.


There is a bit in the DMG somewhere about 10% or so of encounters being a CR higher than the players are suppose to be able to handle( I believe its 4 or more CR higher than the party's level), the challenge is suppose to be recognizing the threat and avoiding it, or just getting out alive. So throwing CR out the window completely the DMG still says every now and then you are suppose to have an encounter (not necessarily a fight) with something you aren't suppose to be able to beat. Based on everything my DM has told me/what I have heard from others 3rd edition is a cake walk compared to the horrors of 1st edition and what could happen to the players. AD&D is less about fighting "CR" appropriate encounters and more about staying alive, thinking ahead, and maybe even a bit of luck. Random encounter with a vampire roles up at level 2? Bad news bears make a new 1st level character. Think I have even seen a guys signature on the forums a few times, saying that he basically died to a vampire at 1st level in AD&D.

[Beheld]

Almost never. A handful of creatures are listed with any items at all and of those only a fraction are listed with magical items.

Nobody's arguing that the CR system is perfect (it's certainly not,) but you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater in declaring it utterly useless.

Monsters are supposed to use their treasure, but like the other "issues" this almost never actually makes them too powerful or too weak, so is equally as irrelevant.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Feats don't alter CR. The same monster with any feats should be the same CR.

Where is this stated? Because my MM says that you should adjust CR when you add or change a creature's special abilities and feats are EX special abilities unless otherwise noted.



When the monster has HD-scaling save DCs or when size increases are involved, modest changes can be drastic. Same with the relative change in cheap HD particularly on high base HD creatures (any Aberration, Undead or such with Ex/Su-abilities requiring a save is going to become significantly more dangerous at CR or two more HD).

See my previous point.


Monsters should use their treasure where possible.

That won't be often if you're using a wide variety of monsters and, even so, the DMG section on encounter design suggests changing the encounter's EL if there are favorable circumstances.


I have yet to play a game significantly improved by eyeballing CR of whatever you wish to use instead of eyeballing their stats.

These things are not mutually exclusive. Do you really need to eyeball the abiities of a small fire elemental when comparing it to a 15th level party? No, of course not.


Indeed, I have never seen a good argument in favor of the existence of a CR system, just defenses against arguments against it. AD&D does just fine without such a system in place, for instance. At least I've yet to hear any AD&D DM complain about lacking a number telling them how hard a creature is to fight. It's pretty apparent off the numbers - CR is at best a learning aid, but one that includes no warnings about dangerous things parties may be ill-equipped to face (e.g. incorporeality, no-save-AOE-disables, high risk of 1-hit KOs, flight or such), so at best a poor one at that.

CR helps to narrow down the list of creatures you have to eyeball for comparison and helps to assign appropriate treasure and XP awards for the encounter; things that are necessary for ensuring that they remain approximately on target for WBL which is, in turn, necessary to keep on the expected power-curve for their level and remain competetive with level appropriate CR. It's a recursive system of interdependent parts. If you screw with any of those parts, the system doesn't work as expected or intended. It's not the fault of the designers if you screw with the system and it stops working as intended.

[Beheld]

That won't be often if you're using a wide variety of monsters and, even so, the DMG section on encounter design suggests changing the encounter's EL if there are favorable circumstances.

Monsters using their treasure is not a favorable circumstance, it is an "every single time that they have items they should use, they use them" rule that doesn't trigger anything favorable.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Monsters using their treasure is not a favorable circumstance, it is an "every single time that they have items they should use, they use them" rule that doesn't trigger anything favorable.

Most monsters will not have treasure they -can- use when you're using the random generation tables. Consequently, treasure they can use isn't factored into their CR unless it's specifically listed in their monster entry. Since gear they can use isn't accounted for, it -is- a favorable circumstance for deriving EL.

[Beheld]

Most monsters will not have treasure they -can- use when you're using the random generation tables. Consequently, treasure they can use isn't factored into their CR unless it's specifically listed in their monster entry. Since gear they can use isn't accounted for, it -is- a favorable circumstance for deriving EL.

No it isn't, that is insane. Some monsters, can use lots of treasure, some can't, that's accounted for in their CR. In no case does using treasure amount to the difference between CR and CR+1, which is why it can be calculated into their CR without favorable circumstances.

Again, If the rules say "Monsters always use the treasure they can use" then it doesn't become favorable circumstances for them to use treasure any more than it is favorable circumstances for devils to see in the dark, or Demons to be immune to lightning, or Aboleths to be in water. Those are already the rules that always apply.

[Malimar]

No it isn't, that is insane. Some monsters, can use lots of treasure, some can't, that's accounted for in their CR. In no case does using treasure amount to the difference between CR and CR+1, which is why it can be calculated into their CR without favorable circumstances.

Again, If the rules say "Monsters always use the treasure they can use" then it doesn't become favorable circumstances for them to use treasure any more than it is favorable circumstances for devils to see in the dark, or Demons to be immune to lightning, or Aboleths to be in water. Those are already the rules that always apply.

On treasure generation, one monster rolls up a +1 greatsword and a +1 full plate (both of which he uses against the PCs), and his neighbor rolls up 5000 copper pieces (which weighs 100lbs and puts him up an encumberance level or two). You don't think one fight is more favorable for the monster than the other?

[Troacctid]

In premade adventures, monsters with treasure typically have things like potions, which are almost never worth using in combat. If you're gonna spend a standard action and provoke attacks of opportunity to drink a potion of cure moderate wounds, then frankly, that's more likely to decrease your effective CR than anything else.

[Kelb_Panthera]

No it isn't, that is insane. Some monsters, can use lots of treasure, some can't, that's accounted for in their CR. In no case does using treasure amount to the difference between CR and CR+1, which is why it can be calculated into their CR without favorable circumstances.

We may be talking past each other.

I'm saying, flatly now, that unless there is a specific treasure listed in a monster's entry, treasure is not factored into their CR. Consequently, having treasure that is not listed in their entry that they can use is a favorable circumstance that increases the EL of encounters featuring those creatures. The ability to use gear does not effect CR but the gear itself, of course, alters encounter level depending on the gear at hand.

Also note that I'm talking about the vast majority of monsters which are -not- humanoids and monstrous humanoids that advance primarily by class level. Those have their own broad rules in the NPC section of the DMG and their CR is not fixed but, instead, a function of their level and special abilities (gear granted or otherwise).


Again, If the rules say "Monsters always use the treasure they can use" then it doesn't become favorable circumstances for them to use treasure any more than it is favorable circumstances for devils to see in the dark, or Demons to be immune to lightning, or Aboleths to be in water. Those are already the rules that always apply.

The rules don't say that. There's a guideline that suggest that intelligent creatures may benefit from doing so (something so patently obvious that it's barely worth mentioning, IMO.)

[Beheld]

On treasure generation, one monster rolls up a +1 greatsword and a +1 full plate (both of which he uses against the PCs), and his neighbor rolls up 5000 copper pieces (which weighs 100lbs and puts him up an encumberance level or two). You don't think one fight is more favorable for the monster than the other?

Since monsters explicitly don't carry around what they can't easily carry, they drop the coins somewhere in their home, shove it under a mattress or whatever, and the other one wears armor and a sword. If they are the type of monster that benefits from both the armor and the sword, then they get +1 to hit and damage, and possibly a small AC bonus depending on default armor and Dex, in exchange for a movement speed reduction. Those two fights may not be identical, but since you would have to roll on a level 5 encounter to even get two items, and CR 5 includes Trolls, Bearded Devils, and Greater Barghests with attacks from +9 to +13, and ACs from 16 to 20, and other defenses from Regeneration, to DR 5/Silver, I'm perfectly comfortable saying that equipping any of those creatures with a Greatsword and Full Plate is not changing the CR.

In fact, I'd rather you give them all the Greatsword, since it would reduce all their damage.


I'm saying, flatly now, that unless there is a specific treasure listed in a monster's entry, treasure is not factored into their CR. Consequently, having treasure that is not listed in their entry that they can use is a favorable circumstance that increases the EL of encounters featuring those creatures. The ability to use gear does not effect CR but the gear itself, of course, alters encounter level depending on the gear at hand.

And I'm saying that you are wrong. Exactly like PCs unspecified gear is calculated into their Party level, so too is the random treasure of monsters calculated into their CR. Because the rules say so, consequently, having and using the treasure they are defined by the rules to have and use is not a favorable circumstance. Just like appearing in their home environment listed in for example, the monster entry, is not a favorable circumstance, or using the tactics they are described as commonly using in the MM is not favorable circumstances.


Also note that I'm talking about the vast majority of monsters which are -not- humanoids and monstrous humanoids that advance primarily by class level. Those have their own broad rules in the NPC section of the DMG and their CR is not fixed but, instead, a function of their level and special abilities (gear granted or otherwise).

Some monsters can use a lot of gear, even and especially non humanoids, such as you know, Dragons and Demons and Devils and Yugloths and Slaads and Modrons Oh My!


The rules don't say that. There's a guideline that suggest that intelligent creatures may benefit from doing so (something so patently obvious that it's barely worth mentioning, IMO.)

The rules state they have treasure, the rules state they use the treasure they have, can't get more explicit than that.

[Yogibear41]

Since monsters explicitly don't carry around what they can't easily carry, they drop the coins somewhere in their home, shove it under a mattress or whatever, and the other one wears armor and a sword. If they are the type of monster that benefits from both the armor and the sword, then they get +1 to hit and damage, and possibly a small AC bonus depending on default armor and Dex, in exchange for a movement speed reduction. Those two fights may not be identical, but since you would have to roll on a level 5 encounter to even get two items, and CR 5 includes Trolls, Bearded Devils, and Greater Barghests with attacks from +9 to +13, and ACs from 16 to 20, and other defenses from Regeneration, to DR 5/Silver, I'm perfectly comfortable saying that equipping any of those creatures with a Greatsword and Full Plate is not changing the CR.

In fact, I'd rather you give them all the Greatsword, since it would reduce all their damage.




I'd prefer if Pit Fiends and the like weren't walking around in +5 mithral armor, using +5 longswords, as well as their other natural attacks, with +5 capes of resistance, who pull out scrolls of heal and auto succeed on the UMD due to modified skills and/or feats. Or conversely a wand chamber in their weapon using the refresh spell that heals all non-lethal damage, which thanks to their regeneration is likely a big chunk of the damage they have taken. Maybe toss on a +5 buckler with improved buckler defense while we are at it for another 6 AC, and the item enhancements that change armor bonus to Touch AC so you can't hit that either.

[Kelb_Panthera]

And I'm saying that you are wrong.

I see.


Exactly like PCs unspecified gear is calculated into their Party level, so too is the random treasure of monsters calculated into their CR. Because the rules say so, consequently, having and using the treasure they are defined by the rules to have and use is not a favorable circumstance. Just like appearing in their home environment listed in for example, the monster entry, is not a favorable circumstance, or using the tactics they are described as commonly using in the MM is not favorable circumstances.

The PC's gear has no effect on their level. They're not completely unrelated but you level regardless of how much or how little treasure the DM hands out and regardless of how much or how little you manage to hang onto or convert into useable gear. Level and CR are different things.

More importantly, PC's and NPC's are built identically, so it's possible to calculate the CR of PC's. Well built, multiclass PC characters will invariably have CR's higher, sometimes significantly so, than their single class NPC counterparts (the ones the generation tables in the DMG yield) of the same level. This is due, in no small part, to the fact that PC's have nearly twice the WBL of NPC's.

If treasure affects CR; the number assigned to represent the challenge the character represents; with humanoids, why wouldn't it effect the challenge represented by monsters of the more monstrous variety. The MM even points out that assigning CR to non-standard monsters is more art than science on page 294, whether they be advanced by class or HD.

That useful treasure, something not all monsters get, is a favorable circumstance granted them by the dice gods is patently obvious. To argue otherwise is absurd. Likewise, your argument that something that is entirely random even -could- be included in any kind of objective measurement of challenge is just as absurd.

Let's look at the range for level 5: There's a very real chance that the dice yield -nothing- for a standard treasure creature. On the other end it could yield a +2 vicious greatsword or an arrow of slaying or a +1 flaming longsword or all three. If the dice -really- hate the PC's you could even end up with a +2 flaming, shocking, frosty, vicious greataxe. These possibilities aren't remotely equal and to pretend they have -no- effect on the challenge represented by a creature capable of wielding them is nonsense; particularly given the difference between nothing and something.



Some monsters can use a lot of gear, even and especially non humanoids, such as you know, Dragons and Demons and Devils and Yugloths and Slaads and Modrons Oh My!

Yes, some creatures can. Most can't. Pointing out exceptions to a trend doesn't disprove the trend. That's beside the point though. Given that what's available, if anything, and what's useable are -random- (except where specifically noted) items -can't- be reasonably included in base CR.




The rules state they have treasure, the rules state they use the treasure they have, can't get more explicit than that.

The rules state that they -might- have treasure (up to the dice) and a -guideline- suggests that they -could- use that treasure if they have any.

[Beheld]

I'd prefer if Pit Fiends and the like weren't walking around in +5 mithral armor, using +5 longswords, as well as their other natural attacks, with +5 capes of resistance, who pull out scrolls of heal and auto succeed on the UMD due to modified skills and/or feats. Or conversely a wand chamber in their weapon using the refresh spell that heals all non-lethal damage, which thanks to their regeneration is likely a big chunk of the damage they have taken. Maybe toss on a +5 buckler with improved buckler defense while we are at it for another 6 AC, and the item enhancements that change armor bonus to Touch AC so you can't hit that either.

And I'm not okay with people breaking the rules either. But since the actual rules involve rolling an actual treasure parcel which comes out to 25% chance of no magic items, 40% chance of no major items, and a 35% chance of 1d3 major items, which probably isn't going to be 3, definitely won't be 5, which you already have in that list, and almost certainly won't be the specific items you want that are the few ones that are actually boosts to his primary combat stats.

And certainly none of that would change it into a CR 21 monster.


The PC's gear has no effect on their level. They're not completely unrelated but you level regardless of how much or how little treasure the DM hands out and regardless of how much or how little you manage to hang onto or convert into useable gear. Level and CR are different things.

"Party Level" is a specific name for a specific mechanic which defines what monsters of what CR and EL a party is expected to face. It goes up and down if you give them more or less treasure than they are defined to have according to the game rules. Likewise, CR is a number that defines monster challenge to a party, and it goes up or down when you deviate from the amount of treasure the monster is supposed to have. Now, it actually can't even go down at all, because every monsters is expected to have a non-zero chance of acquiring zero useful items of treasure, but if you give a monster more treasure than is defined, it could go up, but if you give a monster the amount actually defined, then it stays the same.


More importantly, PC's and NPC's are built identically, so it's possible to calculate the CR of PC's. Well built, multiclass PC characters will invariably have CR's higher, sometimes significantly so, than their single class NPC counterparts (the ones the generation tables in the DMG yield) of the same level. This is due, in no small part, to the fact that PC's have nearly twice the WBL of NPC's.

Actually, it isn't, because NPCs are supposed to use their wealth for, in addition to other things, consumables, that even though costing less than PC items, provide the same or more benefit, for 100% of their fights. That's right in the rules for NPC treasure.


That useful treasure, something not all monsters get, is a favorable circumstance granted them by the dice gods is patently obvious. To argue otherwise is absurd. Likewise, your argument that something that is entirely random even -could- be included in any kind of objective measurement of challenge is just as absurd.

That's funny, because last I checked, the challenge rating measures how likely the party is to take damage enough to kill it, amongst other things, and that is explicitly something that is random.


Let's look at the range for level 5: There's a very real chance that the dice yield -nothing- for a standard treasure creature. On the other end it could yield a +2 vicious greatsword or an arrow of slaying or a +1 flaming longsword or all three. If the dice -really- hate the PC's you could even end up with a +2 flaming, shocking, frosty, vicious greataxe. These possibilities aren't remotely equal and to pretend they have -no- effect on the challenge represented by a creature capable of wielding them is nonsense; particularly given the difference between nothing and something.

And, once again, I'm going to point out that:
a) None of those are actually meaningful differences enough to change the CR, except your 1 in a billion chance one.
b) Just like sometimes monsters roll well on attack rolls, and sometimes they don't, sometimes they roll well on treasure, and sometimes they don't. But in neither case is the monster rolling well supposed to change the CR. This is all factored into the CR.

I mean, there are specific monsters, one of whom is even CR 5, that have a 35% chance to almost literally clone themselves. Do you think rolling well on that roll increases their CR? Spoiler alert, it doesn't. And that roll succeeding is more likely than them rolling even a single magic item.


Yes, some creatures can. Most can't. Pointing out exceptions to a trend doesn't disprove the trend. That's beside the point though. Given that what's available, if anything, and what's useable are -random- (except where specifically noted) items -can't- be reasonably included in base CR.

Except for that whole thing where they can, just like random dice rolls for abilities and random dice rolls for attacks.


The rules state that they -might- have treasure (up to the dice) and a -guideline- suggests that they -could- use that treasure if they have any.

The rules state that they do have treasure, and sometimes that treasure is zero according to the dice, just like the rules say that Bearded Devils do have the ability to summon Bearded Devils, and sometimes they fail.

The rules say in multiple locations that monsters use treasure, and you probably haven't even noticed them all, and the ones you have noticed, you are calling guidelines based on absolutely nothing except that you don't want to admit the rules say monsters use treasure.

[Florian]

To recap at that point:

WotC created a system that is pretty much balanced when you understand its foundations and cornerstones:
- Closed environment (Dungeons)
- Party of four, Fighter, Rogue, Healbot-Cleric, Blaster-Wizard at mid-PB-values
- WBL based on random loot
- Monsters sometimes intentionally break the balance (Dragons)

Looking back at (and remembering gm´ing it back then) the first published 3E campaign (Beginning with citadel) and RTToEE, that worked out pretty well.

Now, is it so hard to understand that changing some of the cornerstones listed above will shift the results?

[Beheld]

To recap at that point:

WotC created a system that is pretty much balanced when you understand its foundations and cornerstones:
- Closed environment (Dungeons)
- Party of four, Fighter, Rogue, Healbot-Cleric, Blaster-Wizard at mid-PB-values

Except that no one agreed with you on 2, and multiple people disagreed. And no one even claimed 1, and also it explicitly contradicts what has been said, the actual rules, and the actual expectations of the game. Spoiler alert, monsters with listed environments of "the Plane of Air" or "Temperate Forests" aren't balanced for dungeons.

[Yogibear41]

I'm more inclined to think the "big four" or so was meant more to be

1. Fighter - primary melee, moderate damage, tanky
2. Rogue - primary skill monkey, high damage under certain situations, glass cannon
3. Cleric - secondary melee, tanky, buffs at beginning of combat or before hand, then wades into melee along side the fighter, fighting at approximately 75-80% of fighters capacity
4. Wizard - whatever is needed: buffs, debuffs, utility, damage, super class Cannon. High Risk high reward.


I don't think anyone ever envisioned the cleric as "oh I just heal" guy, if you go back to the 1st edition dnd PHB that Gygax wrote he basically says these guys are fighters too and might not be as good as a fighter but can hold their own in a melee.

[Florian]

@Yogibear41:

No, not really.
Back in 3E (not 3,5 that´s important), they still used the Base Class, Sub-Class thinking established in AD&D and the Sub-Class itself only had to be "balanced" in regard to the Base Class on a give-and-take basis.
That means that the implied team is Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, Wizard as Base Classes and then it should be possible and balanced to switch out one of the Base Classes for a Sub Class (Fighter <> Barbarian, Paladin, Ranger. Rogue <> Bard, Cleric <> Druid and so on. With Monk being the odd duck here)
It should be noticeable that the CR system should be the balancing factor between the four Base Classes.

And no, it was not the "healbot" but "the guy that can heal and manages his resources in a way that he is able to do so when necessary".

@Beheld:

See the above answer on (2).

As for (1), it is pretty much irrelevant where is happens. Dungeon is just one example.
What happens is that there is an pre-planned Environment containing the challenges to be overcome. As you will "the Adventure" or "the Campaign", nothing outside of that does exist or is relevant.
Ultimately, you can use the structure of the whole CR system as a backbone and use existing material to fill in the blanks.

Which is, I think, the main reason some apparently really powerful options are clumped in at the same levels as others. They used a dual ranking system:
1 - How does it hold up against the implied system?
2 - Is it more powerful than a lesser or higher option?

That means, amongst other things, that things like Plane Shift were never really considered as they would allow to leave "the Adventure" and who would ever want to do that?

[Pluto!]

Who is seriously maintaining that a game with 11 classes was balanced under the assumptions that only 4 would be used? Especially when additional stipulations need to be considered that go against the explicit design goals (eg. "Healbot Clerics" when one of 3e's changes to the class was making sure Clerics have no reason to prepare Cure spells).

3e is not a balanced wargame. There are mental gymnasts here trying to convince themselves that it is, under layers and layers of artificial and willfully misguided stipulations, but they are only misleading themselves.

The system is imbalanced to its core. Whether that has any bearing on whether the system is "good" or playable is another question, but if you're telling yourself that the game was successfully balanced, but only with X, Y and Z classes played in a specific way, and only with enemies A, B and C also being played in a certain way, and only in environments P and Q, you are kidding yourself.

[Eldariel]

Where is this stated? Because my MM says that you should adjust CR when you add or change a creature's special abilities and feats are EX special abilities unless otherwise noted.

See my previous point.

Feats give you ex special abilities where they specify so but that's certainly more of an exception than a rule. Else they'd be lost when Polymorphing - but I have yet to see any rules supporting this reading. Feats are an intrinsic part of levels or HD, just like ability score increases and skills. Any monster could have any given feat on any slot while its base chassis determines its abilities. From Monster Manual:
"The line gives the creature’s feats. A monster gains feats just as a character does—one for its first Hit Die, a second feat if it has at least 3 HD, and an additional feat for every additional 3 HD. (For example, a 9 HD creature is entitled to four feats.)
Sometimes a creature has one or more bonus feats, marked with a superscript B (B). Creatures often do not have the prerequisites for a bonus feat. If this is so, the creature can still use the feat. If you wish to customize the creature with new feats, you can reassign its other feats, but not its bonus feats. A creature cannot have a feat that is not a bonus feat unless it has the feat’s prerequisites."

So aside from the bonus feats, you're free to pick whatever feats you want for everything but its racial bonus feats. Nothing in the Challenge Rating section recommends changing a creature's CR regarding its feats either. Some come entirely without feats, such as Dragons, and yet regardless of their feats they're expected to be the same CR. Overall, CR is a function of HD/type/size/levels/stats plus situational adjustments, not feats or skills or such.


These things are not mutually exclusive. Do you really need to eyeball the abiities of a small fire elemental when comparing it to a 15th level party? No, of course not.

Whether I see its stats or its CR is one and the same. In both cases I'll know at a glance that it's an irrelevant challenge.


CR helps to narrow down the list of creatures you have to eyeball for comparison and helps to assign appropriate treasure and XP awards for the encounter; things that are necessary for ensuring that they remain approximately on target for WBL which is, in turn, necessary to keep on the expected power-curve for their level and remain competetive with level appropriate CR. It's a recursive system of interdependent parts. If you screw with any of those parts, the system doesn't work as expected or intended. It's not the fault of the designers if you screw with the system and it stops working as intended.

That's assuming sticking to WBL helps all classes equally (it doesn't), improves game balance (arguable), is desirable (arguable), leads to players having the expected amount of treasure (depends on the enemies they face - some enemy classes have next to no treasure while others have some to spare). It's a set of interdependencies, yes, but each individual cog is flawed so while they might support one another, even when the machine is working perfectly it's going to produce faulty results. I posit you're better of defenestrating the whole machine rather than trying to abide by flawed rules that should be adjudicated case-by-case. WBL is good for making characters of level X and that's about it.

The wealth of magic items in the game sees the same WBL lead to vastly different powerlevels depending on the specific items and the specific character involved. Ultimately, the amount of wealth is less critical for character power than the presence or absence of specific abilities within the itemization. Same with classes - the wealth of classes and options inside classes leads to character abilities and numbers being a more reliable indicator of appropriate challenge and power than ECL. Same goes for CR too.

[zergling.exe]

Who is seriously maintaining that a game with 11 classes was balanced under the assumptions that only 4 would be used? Especially when additional stipulations need to be considered that go against the explicit design goals (eg. "Healbot Clerics" when one of 3e's changes to the class was making sure Clerics have no reason to prepare Cure spells).

3e is not a balanced wargame. There are mental gymnasts here trying to convince themselves that it is, under layers and layers of artificial and willfully misguided stipulations, but they are only misleading themselves.

The system is imbalanced to its core. Whether that has any bearing on whether the system is "good" or playable is another question, but if you're telling yourself that the game was successfully balanced, but only with X, Y and Z classes played in a specific way, and only with enemies A, B and C also being played in a certain way, and only in environments P and Q, you are kidding yourself.

It would be more accurate to say that they balanced it around 4 roles, which the 4 classes mentioned were the base assumption of filling each role.
The fighter is the 'tank'. They take the hits keep the monster occupied.
The healbot cleric is the 'healer'. They apparently had to keep stacking more and more on the cleric and druid so that they could be both a healer and do other things, because people didn't seem to want to play them.
The rogue is the 'trapfinder'. Sneak attack was not viewed as something you would get all the time. If it was, WotC likely would have given it a much slower damage progression. Cause you know, doing lots of damage is scary. And then when people had figured out that you could get SA all the time, the ninja arrived with a harder to activate SA, as well as the scout with a weaker version (limited to one attack at half progression!).
The evoker wizard is the 'blaster'. This is the party member that does the damage.

[Florian]

It´s simply always good to have that basic thought construct in the back of your mind when looking at stuff like "Balance", "CR" and all the rest.

For Pathfinder, it should be obvious then why they try to discourage people from "building" and introduced ready-made "multiclass-classes" with the ACG. Not because we could´t already build them ourselves, but because a lot of them are cross-role classes.

I dare say that a lot of people here will have a hard time going back to those "simple ways", but a it will work fine for a new group.

[Yogibear41]

@Yogibear41:

No, not really.
Back in 3E (not 3,5 that´s important), they still used the Base Class, Sub-Class thinking established in AD&D and the Sub-Class itself only had to be "balanced" in regard to the Base Class on a give-and-take basis.
That means that the implied team is Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, Wizard as Base Classes and then it should be possible and balanced to switch out one of the Base Classes for a Sub Class (Fighter <> Barbarian, Paladin, Ranger. Rogue <> Bard, Cleric <> Druid and so on. With Monk being the odd duck here)
It should be noticeable that the CR system should be the balancing factor between the four Base Classes.

And no, it was not the "healbot" but "the guy that can heal and manages his resources in a way that he is able to do so when necessary".



I can agree with pretty much all of this, except for the bard replacing the rogue, the trapfinding feature is a pretty big part of the rogue's skill set in my opinion, and depending on the game can be a huge asset. I'd be more inclined to toss the monk in with the fighters, and leave the bard as the odd duck. The alternatives to the "big four" I proposed are in many ways hybrids of the original class, for example paladin = hybrid cleric/fighter, ranger=hybrid cleric(druid)/fighter, bard hybrid=hybrid fighter/wizard, with a dash of rogue. Really instead of the "big four" classes, its more about fullfilling the "big four" roles. At least in my opinion.

Being:
1. Tank/melee
2. Skills/trapfinding
3. buffing/healing
4. magical support

Such that if your party has a Paladin you can cover both the tank/melee role as well as the buff/healing role (although to a significantly lesser degree)

As a 5th role I would probably even say that a "wilderness character" is needed as well, which can be fulfilled easily by the ranger, barbarian, or druid, or maybe even the bard or rogue, so it could be included in the original four or not depending on your line up, because being able to get to the dungeon or adventure is sometimes half the battle.

[Balmas]

Let's see... If we assume a low-op, beginner's game of 3.X, it's not too bad. Wizards blast, Fighters slash, bards sing, rogues stab. It'll get things done, and pretty much everyone but the cleric is having fun. This is especially true at lower levels. At higher levels, though, it becomes problematic. When you start running into Balors, dragons, and other baddies, you really want your wizards to be doing more than hurling a fireball and your clerics to do more than be the walking bandaid.

[Florian]

Balmas, look around at quite a lot of people write when it comes to their groups "Help me with my build, I´m the only one interested in the mechanical stuff...". We all know that handling high-level enemies takes both: system knowledge and actual tactical acumen to have them perform at full capacity. That level is quite uninteresting for casual gamers and will surely lead to a TPK. The point being, even high-level threats perform to the level that we want them to.