Fundamental flaws of the 3e system?

[Elves]

Obviously if we're around here we like or have some interest in the system, but what do you view as the fundamental flaws and shortcomings of the D&D 3e game? Pathfinder is fair game too.

I'm not talking about specific things like "x class is badly designed" or "too few feats", but about underlying things like "feats are a bad idea [for whatever reason]".

[PhantasyPen]

The idea that martial characters should automatically be inferior to spellcasters, and that magic can do anything.

[el minster]

The idea that martial characters should automatically be inferior to spellcasters, and that magic can do anything.

this is seconded

[SangoProduction]

Mostly that, whatever a martial can do, a caster can do better, if they so chose.
Up until any differences are moot, aside from the ease of use / building, where casters still are at the top.

It's why I prefer the Spheres of Might / Power system. Sure, the same principles apply, but the gap's much closer, and you have to actually decide to step on the martial charger's toes, rather than passively having it in your spell book along with 500 other spells.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

Magic is too good, mundane is bad, and the major reason is versatility. Spellcasters are able to do too many things, and mundanes aren't able to do enough things.

Action economy is also a problem, especially when it comes to a single powerful 'boss' encounter. Especially when it comes to characters gaining more actions than they would normally have, which again is due to spells.

Magic items are mandatory for mundanes and even partial casters to be able to keep up from the mid levels and beyond. Full casters don't necessarily need items, but it wouldn't be fair to deprive them of the same gear value as the mundanes get. Every character ends up looking like a Christmas tree even before the higher levels.

[Gnaeus]

The pretense that classes/feats/same level spells are balanced. I don’t mind the imbalance itself. Just the game assumption that a 5th level party of Monk, Ranger, Druid, Cleric doesn’t have 2 characters which are way better than the other 2.

[Spellweaver]

Too many bonuses, and this go over board with magic. It was enough to just have like a dozen bonus types for every action, but magic pushed everything too far. And the worst bit was magic being more powerful then the mundane. It would have been much better if magic did not have so many bonuses.

Not enough powerful mundane class abilities, skill uses and feats. The rules are full of such things for magic though.

[SangoProduction]

Didn't each class use to have their own xp rates to level up before? That was kinda hilarious.

Also, while we can point out flaws. We mustn't forget that fixing those flaws doesn't always produce a desirable result, and sometimes it's best to have some limited flaws and variety than no flaws and blandness.

[Elves]

Let's not get derailed to martials vs casters thread 9000. Also I'm not sure that's a flaw of the game chassis itself so much as of how specific classes are built.

The skill system is one thing I'd bring up. The huge range of modifiers make skill DCs impossible to use as anything but flavor unless they are specifically tailored to your specific PCs (presumably this was part of the rationale for making them so ad hoc in 5e). The failure of the truenamer is mocked but the fact that it's so hard to have a solid mechanical subsystem based on skill DCs is revealing. Skill ranks usually end up as the only viable thing to use since those are more tightly controlled.

[Zanos]

At high levels, rocket tag. Most high level effects or even attack sequences are easily capable of instantly killing a character or monster on either side of the encounter, and this almost always leads to death spirals. This means optimizing initiative to take out enemies either via incapacitating effects or death is paramount at high levels.

[Mike Miller]

I think the fundamental flaw of magic/psionics/ etc is using 9 levels. Power is gained too quickly and reaches too far, which is the fuel for the martial/caster disparity. If spells maxed at a lower level and took longer to reach them from the very first published books (and therefore we wouldn't have the baseline of 9ths that we know and love), there could very well be a significant decrease in the aforementioned disparity.

[King of Nowhere]

not thinking through how high levels would affect the world.
there are tables for high level npcs showing there are a fair bit in every major town, but at the same time it is assumed that there would still be regular armies. those are totally useless against anyone past level 10. the world is full of nasty monsters that only the strongest adventurers can hope to defeat, and yet humanking has not been wiped out.
and let's not go in the larger setting stuff, there are lots of planes populated by things much stronger than anything in the prime material, that are moving pawns in the prime material but conveniently cannot go there directly.
if you take that kind of stuff at face value, it collapses pretty fast.

and then, as many others said, magic being able to do anything. do notice, i do not believe this is a caster vs martial problem. it's not something you can fix by buffing martials, and anyway they don't need it too much because they are so fulll of magic themselves, they're barely martials anymore. (also, you can't fix the divide by buffing martials/nerfing casters, because the power of casters is so much dependent upon optimization; if you nerf casters, you may improve things at high op, but you will strongly limit low op tables)
no, the problem is literally magic doing anything, and better. you spent 20 levels to pump up your bluff check, a 2nd level spell can do it better. wherever magic has a limitation, there are ways to circumvent that limitation. magic should have harder limitations, and it should be more difficult to replicate mundane stuff.
then again, there are people who actually like to play like that, so perhaps it's not a bug, but a feature. i often say that this game don't work when taken as a whole, but it works very well if you only take selected pieces, and you can get many different games by taking different pieces.

i also agree on the rocket tag, but that is tricky. the problem is, people get angry when they do their cool thing and the opponent no-sells it. so they made sure that nobody could no-sell your cool thing, which lead to rocket tag. but fixing that would likely result in people angry because their cool thing won't work as well anymore.

[Elves]

At high levels, rocket tag. Most high level effects or even attack sequences are easily capable of instantly killing a character or monster on either side of the encounter, and this almost always leads to death spirals. This means optimizing initiative to take out enemies either via incapacitating effects or death is paramount at high levels.

What do you think is the ideal combat length?

[The Viscount]

Death by massive damage is a rule so terrible people forget about it, because it gets houseruled away. Makes the rocket tag worse, and basically adds a bonus SoD rider onto damage dealing spells past a certain level.

I'll throw in monster abilities requiring specific spells to counteract or cure the statuses. It assumes a party composition with casters that have access to these spells, and often the effects aren't duplicated for later classes or alternate magic systems.

[Zanos]

What do you think is the ideal combat length?
It varies by table, but I think it should take more than 1-2 rounds before the combat degenerates from a conflict to a cleanup.

[Telonius]

I'm not sure how "fundamental" this flaw is, but the way combat tends to bog down at higher levels. Overabundance of options leads to slower decision times (for casters); overabundance of iterative attacks leads to more time adding up bonuses (for martials). Dozens of fiddly little bonuses that creep in over the levels add more time, effort, and attention too.

[HeraldOfExius]

Most numbers have too wide of a range (skills, ability scores, attack bonus and AC, etc.). I think this mainly has to do with the fact that people expect to see improvement whenever they level up, so everything has to scale up frequently. Having to populate the world with 20+ levels worth of stuff can cause some issues. This can be solved by using a smaller range of power such as E6, but doing that comes at the cost of the explosive growth of power that comes from getting to the higher levels, which can also be part of the fun of the system.

[Thunder999]

Big numbers aren't a problem, they serve to ensure that high level characters are better than lower level ones and no amount of random chance from dice is going to make up the difference.

Definitely agree that pretending martials and casters are both equally valid options while also ensuring the former is objectively worse than the latter is a flaw though.

[Zanos]

Big numbers aren't a problem, they serve to ensure that high level characters are better than lower level ones and no amount of random chance from dice is going to make up the difference.
I agree. 5e clamps things down and I don't like how it makes massed low level threats a problem for powerful creatures or characters. In 3.5 no number of level 3 human soldiers is going to threaten an ancient red dragon, which makes adventurers and heroes necessary.

[Ignimortis]

Obviously if we're around here we like or have some interest in the system, but what do you view as the fundamental flaws and shortcomings of the D&D 3e game? Pathfinder is fair game too.

I'm not talking about specific things like "x class is badly designed" or "too few feats", but about underlying things like "feats are a bad idea [for whatever reason]".

The idea that magic items are absolutely necessary to keep up with the curve. It's why I adopted a form of Automatic Bonus Progression from PF.

The scale of the idea that things being at-will must mean they have to be severely weaker than things that are X/day. Of course, balancing is necessary, but 3e/PF really overvalues anything at-will simply because it's spammable.

Too many random modifiers. There are more than five buff types (deep breath....inherent, enhancement, morale, circumstance, profane, alchemical, sacred, competence, insight!) Why? I enjoy bigger numbers as much as the next guy, but stacking everything that can be stacked is very meh. I'd keep maybe three types - inherent or competence, enhancement and circumstance.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

I agree. 5e clamps things down and I don't like how it makes massed low level threats a problem for powerful creatures or characters. In 3.5 no number of level 3 human soldiers is going to threaten an ancient red dragon, which makes adventurers and heroes necessary.

I honestly like how 5e does it. An ancient dragon is going to take flight and strafe the low level army with its breath weapon, if they spread out it can fly away and get them to chase it into a choke point. It makes it so if your mid to high level party is escorting a handful of low level halflings, and you end up in an underground tomb with a hundred goblins and a cave troll coming at you, everything's a threat and everyone can contribute. Or if your party is the low level halflings and you have mid to high level NPCs escorting you, they're not just going to completely mop the floor with the encounter and your characters get to feel like they've contributed.

[Elves]

Too many random modifiers. There are more than five buff types (deep breath....inherent, enhancement, morale, circumstance, profane, alchemical, sacred, competence, insight!) Why? I enjoy bigger numbers as much as the next guy, but stacking everything that can be stacked is very meh. I'd keep maybe three types - inherent or competence, enhancement and circumstance.

Something I think would be a huge benefit in regards to bonus types is basing them on game function rather than flavor. Leveling bonus, item bonus, "power" (spell, maneuver, etc) bonus, class bonus, that kind of thing. It makes it a lot easier to work with. I think you could actually have just as many bonus types as now, but by ordering them in this more structured and explicit way they become much easier to remember and understand.

[Thunder999]

The point of different types is to stack them.

This ensures that multiple different buff spells and class features can be useful at once, on top of your basic items.

[HeraldOfExius]

The issue that I have with the range of numbers isn't so much that low level characters can't deal with high level threats, it's that having a game where a character can progress from "risks dying in a fight with goblins" to "veritable force of nature" requires having encounters that are level appropriate for both extremes and everything in between. Characters then have to come across these encounters in the correct order. When there's such a wide range of power in the world, it can start to feel a little contrived that there's always something level appropriate for the party to do. There isn't anything wrong with this from a gameplay perspective (since something too high leveled would be impossible and something too low leveled would be uninteresting), but it forces a narrative limitation. If the BBEG is a credible threat to a high level party, then the plot has to keep him away from the PCs until they're actually able to fight him. He just gets to send increasingly powerful minions to be thwarted until then. That's the sort of thing that I see as an issue with the wide range of power.

[Blue Jay]

I sometimes grumble about how many different ways there are to bypass a character's hit points and still harm them. I'm talking about things like ability drain and energy drain. As a DM, I don't like using those attacks against PCs, because they always feel like "dirty tactics" to me; and I don't like having to keep track of all the different "currencies" of health in combat, and recalculating all the knock-on effects of Dexterity damage or Constitution bonuses. I made a spreadsheet that recalculates many of those things automatically for me, so at least that part is partially taken care of.

And I inevitably forget to apply Damage Reduction, Energy Resistance, Spell Resistance, Fast Healing, Regeneration, temporary hit points, various types of miss chances, and situational bonuses to AC and saves. There are just too many different things like that for me to keep them all straight in my head. You've got to be really good at the game to DM well.

[Telok]

The continual advancement of skill ranks, bonuses, and DCs at a rate greater than 1/level. It's taken to the point that you're too good to roll at a couple things, have to roll at a couple things, and absolutely incompetent at everything else. Unless you're a 2+int mundane class in which case you're athletic and/or intimidating and/or can ride trained animals, and utter rubbish at anything especially useful after 10th level.

I emphatically don't agree with the 5e method of making it so that apes can occasionally beat archmagi at arcana knowledge checks, or kobolds can beat giants at arm wrestling, and then leaving it to the DM to fix the skill system. I also had issues with the 4e method where you could get a character with +11 & take 10 over the next PC in the party and force the DM to make things that only you could do and only at a less than 50/50 chance. That happened with perception & stealth in our game. It caused problems.

I don't have a solution. I think that the unified d20+mods doesn't do skill type stuff very well. But modern D&D is just completely married to that sacred cow.

The other thing is open spell lists. They were fine in AD&D where a wizard wasn't automatically assumed to have access to all arcane spells and clerics had limited (1e) or incomplete (2e, spheres) spell lists. Simply put I think that all the 3.p main line casters should be beguiler/warmage style with thematic lists and real class features beyond casting. Favored soul doesn't count, it's just sad.

[Ignimortis]

The continual advancement of skill ranks, bonuses, and DCs at a rate greater than 1/level. It's taken to the point that you're too good to roll at a couple things, have to roll at a couple things, and absolutely incompetent at everything else. Unless you're a 2+int mundane class in which case you're athletic and/or intimidating and/or can ride trained animals, and utter rubbish at anything especially useful after 10th level.

I emphatically don't agree with the 5e method of making it so that apes can occasionally beat archmagi at arcana knowledge checks, or kobolds can beat giants at arm wrestling, and then leaving it to the DM to fix the skill system. I also had issues with the 4e method where you could get a character with +11 & take 10 over the next PC in the party and force the DM to make things that only you could do and only at a less than 50/50 chance. That happened with perception & stealth in our game. It caused problems.

I don't have a solution. I think that the unified d20+mods doesn't do skill type stuff very well. But modern D&D is just completely married to that sacred cow.


PF 2e handled the skill scaling (not the DCs, but the skills themselves) somewhat alright, by giving out a bonus equal to character level. It'd take some tweaking (like being untrained only gives 1/2 of a level, trained is +level, and expert may be x1.5 of a level or an extra static bonus on top of +level), but the general idea that you pick up a lot of small stuff while adventuring and can use it at least somewhat well compared to a normal person sounds good to me.

[NichG]

Broadly, I would say that my biggest pet peeve with 3e is the degree to which much of the game is played away from the table, rather than at the table. That breaks down into a couple of specific complaints, and the specific stuff is entirely addressable with house rules and tweaks, but it's a bit harder to shake the mindset of 'I'm going to find a game to play my character in' versus 'I'm going to play a game and my character will emerge' that sometimes exists.

For example, because of the way that prestige class entry requirements, feat prerequisites, etc work, you're penalized if you don't plan out your character build in advance. Changing the order that you take feats can make a big difference at later levels when in one case you might end up with a 3 level delay before you can start advancing in a PrC compared to someone who got the order straight. A spot fix for this is making sure to use the retraining rules and even making retraining easier than those rules would normally suggest (e.g. allow retraining character levels without the need for a quest or other big uptime thing). But even with that, there's still the tension that the choices you're making at level 3 have more to do with what you want to come online by level 6 or 9 than what's currently going on with your character.

Another angle on this is things like prepared spellcasters' spell choices for the day, or even class choices when going into a campaign being perhaps more important to success or failure than the actual decisions made during game. If you're playing a rogue in an undead-heavy campaign, there isn't much you can do to pivot and resolve that mistake. If you're playing a wizard and you prepared Knock, or didn't prepare Knock, that decision made in advance of any information about the scenario can have more impact on whether you can open that door/chest/etc than the decisions you can make once actually encountering that obstacle. This one is a bit more work to fix - IME it means using alternate magic systems that look more like spontaneous casting, as well as rebuilding the way that monsters, obstacles, stunting, etc work so that many abilities or circumstances you might encounter have a number of built-in conditionals and counters that a savvy player could exploit.

For a specific example, lets take incorporeal enemies. If you have a magic weapon or you use magic to attack, you can fight them. If you don't, you can't fight them. Now lets re-imagine the Incorporeal state such that when an incorporeal creature attacks or does almost anything, they have to briefly phase into reality in order to have an effect. Furthermore, lets say that shunting/etc pose a problem, so ghosts attacking during a rainstorm or other sorts of ambient matter fields would be hindered or even take damage. So now at least people with non-magic weapons could ready actions and try to bait the creature into attacking, they could wait till a rainy day and lure the thing out of its lair, they could try to fill the air with droplets or shrapnel to make the thing shunt, etc. It's still a lot more difficult than if you have a hard counter ready on your character sheet, but it's at least a challenge that could be figured out during play rather than just an impossible matchup with the only answer 'lets go back to base and get some oils of magic weapon'. Similarly, I'd tend to want to say something like 'undead are immune to various things through their Type, except that every kind of undead has one particular thing that renders them exactly as vulnerable as they were in life'. So if you're playing a rogue in an undead campaign, suddenly you're trying to be a Witcher and coming up with blade oils, keepsakes from their life, whatever the counter is. Rather than just sitting on the sidelines and regretting the choices you made 3 months prior.

Again, you can sort of fix this by very careful GMing - if you have a low level party deal with flying creatures, make sure there are spaces in the area where there isn't enough headroom for flight. If you have an undead-heavy plotline, make load-bearing necromancers that the rogues can target (or warn players in advance), etc. But it'd be nicer if there were more system-level things that would help players focus on 'how can I solve this situation I'm in now?' rather than 'how am I going to be able to solve every hypothetical situation I might be in later?'.

Anyhow, things like that. Ideally for me, the decisions made at the table should be of about equal importance to the decisions made away from it. Give an optimization/character building minigame to people who enjoy that or draw inspiration from it and allow it to matter, but have that focus more on customizing how one's character feels to play rather than pre-emptively determining success or failure.

[Elves]

The 4e/5e binary of trained/untrained skills is mainly bad because it doesn't model that key thing of a side-skill or a hobby you pick up while adventuring, etc. I would be pretty fine with that system if they added a half-proficiency tier for side skills and more ability to gain new skills while leveling.

[Ashtagon]

The idea that past level 6 or so, a fighter can stare down a squadron of town guard armed with bows at the ready at point blank range, challenge them to give it their best shot, and then proceed to wipe the floor with them.

[Ignimortis]

The idea that past level 6 or so, a fighter can stare down a squadron of town guard armed with bows at the ready at point blank range, challenge them to give it their best shot, and then proceed to wipe the floor with them.

I'd say that it's a great thing, not a flaw. 5e got rid of that and that's a big part of why I'm still sticking to 3.5.

[Zanos]

The continual advancement of skill ranks, bonuses, and DCs at a rate greater than 1/level. It's taken to the point that you're too good to roll at a couple things, have to roll at a couple things, and absolutely incompetent at everything else. Unless you're a 2+int mundane class in which case you're athletic and/or intimidating and/or can ride trained animals, and utter rubbish at anything especially useful after 10th level.
I don't feel that is the case. A small minority of skills have extreme DC scaling. Off the top of my head, Bluff vs. Sense Motive, Hide vs. Spot, Move Silent vs. Listen, and Knowledge vs. HD(but only for monsters). You're just as good at climbing and tumbling and swiming and gathering information at level 20 as your were at level 1 if you don't invest more ranks. Maybe even a little better as you've gotten some bonuses to your ability scores and better access to magic items.

What I do think is a problem with skills is that some abilities or spells make them completely irrelevant. All day flight makes climbing pretty useless and blindsight is quite literally a 'lolno' to hide checks.

[daremetoidareyo]

Prestige class prerequisites. You gotta plan it out way in advance. 1 feat and a class feature? No problem. But a bunch have wierd skill gates, multiple bad feats, and ugh alignment stuff.

And some prestige classes are so flavorful, that it makes more sense to take as soon as possible,

[Malphegor]

A lack of using a thesaurus. oots pointed this out early on, but it holds true.

You got your...

Spell level

caster level

Effective Character Level

Level adjustment

Levels of a map perhaps

and so on.

Similarly that there’s an enchantment school of magic (which makes sense) but enchanting weapons is really ‘enhancing’ them is really annoying for someone who wants to describe this stuff especially when enchantment thanks to video games often refers to giving items magical properties rather than enchanting someone’s mind.

I dunno, it feels like 3.X could have benefited from some languages graduates being given each book as they came out and being given the task of making the wording as clear as possible and to avoid using the same term for different things.

Also in terms of flaws, level adjustments are often just nonsensically high based on a percieved benefit a race would give that in reality aren’t that great in actual play.

[Ignimortis]

A lack of using a thesaurus. oots pointed this out early on, but it holds true.

You got your...

Spell level

caster level

Effective Character Level

Level adjustment

Levels of a map perhaps

and so on.


I mean, all of those except spell level and map level refer to the same mechanic in general - your caster level for something is usually equal to your level in a certain casting class, and your effective character level is level adjustment+all your other levels.

Spells should probably be broken up into "circles" or "tiers" instead of levels? And map levels aren't a game mechanic, so I'm not sure that applies.

[DrMartin]

for me most of the other points made in the thread are the consequences of one of 3rd edition core design goals: to make an open, accessible, and flexible design system. 3e was the first game released under an open license, and as such the goal was to make something with one underlying mechanic, where pretty much every class and ability would be built using a recognizable chassis.

This included transforming a lot of what in previous editions of d&d were fixed, arbitrary values into player-facing formulas.

Enter hallmarks of the 3rd edition like:
- all ability scores giving the same bonus to all classes and scaling at a uniform pace
- saving throws being defined by an homogeneous formula for all classes
- saving throw DCs being player-facing and generally calculated with the same formula instead of being tied to the specific effect or spell
- initiative being a uniform value based on character stats and not based on the action the character is taking
- special abilities like thieves skills bundled into the generic skill system, the list goes on.

Effect of this were things like thieves (now rogues) losing their niche, HP bloat (now monsters are built like characters - that means they have a constitution score, and tons of HP!) , high level monster not necessarily having solid saves, plus basically unfettered save DC optimization on the caster side.

Add this other mysterious design choices like the introduction of the concentration mechanics / casting defensively / 5 foot steps to make spellcasting even easier, and deciding that attacking required full attacks but casting requiring (mostly) only standard actions, and you have all (or at least most of) the ingredients of caster supremacy as we know it.

so yeah, to sum it up: the fundamental flaw was wanting to make yet another "generic" and "scalable" system. Keeping it alive by publishing a new splatbook with new options every month just adds gasoline to the fire.

This might have been, incidentally, its greatest virtue as well, as it is a system that keeps people engaged and playing and still discovering synergies many many years after the end of its run.

[Ashtagon]

That "level" tyhing is actually an issue with D&D in general, not 3e. One of the 1978/79 1st edition books actually lampshades this issue.

[Zanos]

Spells should probably be broken up into "circles" or "tiers" instead of levels? And map levels aren't a game mechanic, so I'm not sure that applies.
I used circles myself. Spell Level is one of those things that is pretty clearly observable to the characters in universe, so when you ask a wizard if he can cast 'sixth level' spells in character, it seems super weird. Circles sounds more mystical. Because of geometry, or something.

[ExLibrisMortis]

The pretense that classes/feats/same level spells are balanced. I don’t mind the imbalance itself. Just the game assumption that a 5th level party of Monk, Ranger, Druid, Cleric doesn’t have 2 characters which are way better than the other 2.
This. When writing about the system, WotC is at its worst. They never looked at their own work critically. (This is common in game design, I feel... perhaps because it's seen as "creative" work, rather than "building something that works", but that's just a hunch.)

[Kurald Galain]

The idea that past level 6 or so, a fighter can stare down a squadron of town guard armed with bows at the ready at point blank range, challenge them to give it their best shot, and then proceed to wipe the floor with them.
That's one of the best things about 3E: it's one of the few systems that actually lets you go "zero to hero".


To me, the main flaw is tiny distinctions that rarely matter. Like, there's no good reason to have both ability damage and ability drain, or having sacred and profane bonuses. Too many bonus types in general, and some of them arbitrarily stack with themselves whereas others don't. "Caster level" being distinct from "level in a caster class" and from dispel checks. Too many different creature types, which makes the ranger's favored enemy ability pretty useless. Too many damage types, which makes resistance or vulnerability rarely useful. Too many equipment slots; things like that. It's actually worse in 3.5 because PF fixes a number (but by no means all) of these.

A big flaw is that character race is rarely apparent in play. In 4E, every race has a highly visible special power that they will use almost every encounter; whereas in 3E/PF, you distinguish race mostly by the ability bonuses. Unfortunately, neither 5E nor P2 learned that lesson.

A minor thing, but the lack of a "strongman" skill bothers me. Pretty much everything you do out of combat is a skill check, except bending/lifting/pushing things, which is a flat strength check. Problem is that the math is different on these, and the scrawny wizard is too likely to roll higher than the buff barbarian on a strength check.

Finally, the system tends to vastly overvalue (and therefore overprice) cool abilities like forced movement and bleed damage (edit) and life drain, and therefore these rarely see play. Something else it overvalues is any kind of at-will magic, as well as "role switching" (e.g. PF's medium class).

[Aharon]

not thinking through how high levels would affect the world.
there are tables for high level npcs showing there are a fair bit in every major town, but at the same time it is assumed that there would still be regular armies. those are totally useless against anyone past level 10. the world is full of nasty monsters that only the strongest adventurers can hope to defeat, and yet humanking has not been wiped out.
and let's not go in the larger setting stuff, there are lots of planes populated by things much stronger than anything in the prime material, that are moving pawns in the prime material but conveniently cannot go there directly.
if you take that kind of stuff at face value, it collapses pretty fast.

I don't think that is true:
1.) Low level mooks can be dangerous in big numbers - give 400 warriors a longbow each, and on average, 1 one of them will crit and confirm. 3.200, and one will crit, confirm and roll 8 damage, on average - enough to eat away HP reasonably fast. If the mooks are buffed by low level levelled bards, clerics, etc., they might even perform better.
2.) Same goes for casters - lower level wizards can very effectively force concentration checks on their higher level peers: https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=21134512&postcount=1
3.) The cooperative spell feat is next to useless for PC casters, but can be very effectively used by NPCs - a fifth level wizard with 10 level 1 apprentices, where all of them have the cooperative spell feat, can shut down a higher level enemy very effectively (1st level spells with DC 24 (11 base +2 ability + 11 feat) are not easy to beat - the good save at level 10 is +7, lets add +3 resistance and +2 for improved ability, that's still a more than 50% chance to fail the save). There are plenty of action-inhibiting mind-affecting spells (Command, Distract, Inhibit, Nybor's Gentle Reminder, Tasha's hideous laughter), and some nasty non-mind-affecting ones (Buzzing Bee, Backbiter, Distort Speech, Net of Shadows),...
4) Same goes for Melee - level 5 guy with 2-handed weapon delays, 1st level mooks move and ready action to aid another (one of them might die to an opportunity attack), level 5 guy moves and attacks for relevant damage.

It's usually not played out in actual games that way because losing to a horde of low-level guys is kind of a downer, and since it would involve loooots of die rolls and be boring for PCs, but it would work.


I agree. 5e clamps things down and I don't like how it makes massed low level threats a problem for powerful creatures or characters. In 3.5 no number of level 3 human soldiers is going to threaten an ancient red dragon, which makes adventurers and heroes necessary.
Given the calculation above, an army of ~93.700 level 1 warriors could take down the dragon in one round (~235 crits, of which 150 deal no damage at all, the rest deal 3, 6 or 9 damage - enough to reach the 527 hp of an ancient red).
Optimization and higher-level support likely makes this number (a lot?) smaller.

[Ignimortis]

I don't think that is true:
1.) Low level mooks can be dangerous in big numbers - give 400 warriors a longbow each, and on average, 1 one of them will crit and confirm. 3.200, and one will crit, confirm and roll 8 damage, on average - enough to eat away HP reasonably fast. If the mooks are buffed by low level levelled bards, clerics, etc., they might even perform better.
2.) Same goes for casters - lower level wizards can very effectively force concentration checks on their higher level peers: https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=21134512&postcount=1
3.) The cooperative spell feat is next to useless for PC casters, but can be very effectively used by NPCs - a fifth level wizard with 10 level 1 apprentices, where all of them have the cooperative spell feat, can shut down a higher level enemy very effectively (1st level spells with DC 24 (11 base +2 ability + 11 feat) are not easy to beat - the good save at level 10 is +7, lets add +3 resistance and +2 for improved ability, that's still a more than 50% chance to fail the save). There are plenty of action-inhibiting mind-affecting spells (Command, Distract, Inhibit, Nybor's Gentle Reminder, Tasha's hideous laughter), and some nasty non-mind-affecting ones (Buzzing Bee, Backbiter, Distort Speech, Net of Shadows),...
4) Same goes for Melee - level 5 guy with 2-handed weapon delays, 1st level mooks move and ready action to aid another (one of them might die to an opportunity attack), level 5 guy moves and attacks for relevant damage.

It's usually not played out in actual games that way because losing to a horde of low-level guys is kind of a downer, and since it would involve loooots of die rolls and be boring for PCs, but it would work.

As soon as PCs get some form of in-combat healing or good non-AC defenses, this falls apart a bit. Not much you can do against a Wrathful Healing Combat Reflexes Great Cleave Warblade other than run away and hope your low-level spellcasters nail them before dying.

[Aharon]

As soon as PCs get some form of in-combat healing or good non-AC defenses, this falls apart a bit. Not much you can do against a Wrathful Healing Combat Reflexes Great Cleave Warblade other than run away and hope your low-level spellcasters nail them before dying.

In-combat healing is often seen as sub-optimal on this board, so many builds don't have it. The same goes for Great Cleave and (to a lesser extent) Combat Reflexes, they are not feats melee characters are usually advised to take. But yes, this specific build is good against hordes :smallsmile:

Also, edited to add to the actual question:
I think one of it's main flaws is the WBL system, since it encourages players to be murder hobos and makes in-game rewards like castles, that don't add to the character's numbers directly, less interesting.

[Kurald Galain]

In-combat healing is often seen as sub-optimal on this board
No, it is suboptimal in 3.5 but an entirely valid strategy in PF. It's kind of funny how, after a decade, some people still haven't noticed that their issues have been improved and/or fixed.

[Silly Name]

Too many modifiers, especially at high levels: while Big Numbers Good holds true, having to add and subtract a bunch of small numbers from every roll slowed things down considerably, particularly for newbies. It's not even complex, just tedious.

Lack of unified skill functionality: arguably an holdover from earlier editions, but stuff like Craft (whatever) was basically a subsystem of a substysem, and probably would have worked better as not a bunch of skills but something players can invest into in different ways.
I actually quite like the overall skill system of 3.X, and was very disappointed to see how bare-bones 5e's skill system is despite appreciating other elements of that edition.

A quite transparent dearth of playtesting and quality control, especially with successive splatbooks. We all know the completely unbalanced stuff that got printed, and the NPC statblocks that barely make sense, poor wording of class abilities and feats and so on.

Trap options for inexperienced players, and options that only make sense at low levels but become absolutely irrelevant at higher levels (looking at you, pile of absolutely worthless feats). This also ties into the "feat tax" idea - which is different from just a feat chain, which was a neat thing. But locking good options behind bad option is just awful.

[Aharon]

No, it is suboptimal in 3.5 but an entirely valid strategy in PF. It's kind of funny how, after a decade, some people still haven't noticed that their issues have been improved and/or fixed.

Well, the question was referring to 3e, not to PF :smallwink:
But I admit I didn't know PF fixed that - how so? The Cure Wounds line hasn't changed a lot, as far as I can see?

[Kurald Galain]

Well, the question was referring to 3e, not to PF :smallwink:
OP says, "Pathfinder is fair game too." :smallcool:


But I admit I didn't know PF fixed that - how so? The Cure Wounds line hasn't changed a lot, as far as I can see?
Clerics, paladins, and some other divine classes get Channel Energy, which heals the entire party as a standard action, and which has some feats and items which boost it further. Turns out that healing multiple people for one action is often worthwhile, even if healing a single person for one action is not.

[Ignimortis]

OP says, "Pathfinder is fair game too." :smallcool:


Clerics, paladins, and some other divine classes get Channel Energy, which heals the entire party as a standard action, and which has some feats and items which boost it further. Turns out that healing multiple people for one action is often worthwhile, even if healing a single person for one action is not.

Sadly, most if not all life drain effects got hit with a nerf bat - they only provide temp HP, or restore limited health per day (!). It's a shame, because life drain is one of my favourite concepts, and it's kinda weaksause in PF 1e.

[Aotrs Commander]

The idea that past level 6 or so, a fighter can stare down a squadron of town guard armed with bows at the ready at point blank range, challenge them to give it their best shot, and then proceed to wipe the floor with them.

The alterative approach leads you to Rolemaster, where it is impossible (without basically house-ruling fiat over backwards) to have a boss fight, since with a good roll or two, any character can kill almost anything. (It is statistically possilbe, if not staistically pluasible, for a hobbit armed with a bent knife to kill Morgoth.) I love Rolemaster, but that is one of ITS fundemental flaws.




Clerics, paladins, and some other divine classes get Channel Energy, which heals the entire party as a standard action, and which has some feats and items which boost it further. Turns out that healing multiple people for one action is often worthwhile, even if healing a single person for one action is not.

Which is odd, since from my reading of various character guides and whatnot, Channel Energy seems generally considered not very good. (Granted, it's much better than Turn/Rebuke, but it's still not huge.)



3.0 has a lot of rules which don't work/are terrible and some poor execution balance-wise - but I don't feel that the chassis is fundementally flawed at all. On the contrary, I have seen no system produce a better fundemental basis. (If I had, I would have spent nine months writing a 1000 pages of houserules for THAT system...)



3.x's problems, as I see them, as as follows:

The caster/martial disparity. I've gone a good way to fix that with my house-rules to classes/feats, using high point buy and the elimination of random stat and hit point generation (using maximum hit points) and the issue is talked to death, so I won't expound any further. (Maximised hit points also goes a long way to deal with the rocket tag issue, with correspoding buffs to healing (i.e. cure spells1), which were frankly grossly underpowered legacies from AD&D). Whether you would find I went far enough depends on personal taste, but at least our paradigm, we've not had problems.)

Magic item Christmas tree. I've experimented with my campaign houserules subset in eliminating that (effectively treated magic weapons/armour as being at a rarity of [enhancement bonus -3]) and replacing it with a standard progression for all classes and monsters. (So at 2nd level, every weapon you pick up is +1, every armour you wear is +1 etc.) But to implement that, you kind of have to redesign everything, so it's not something I've attempted to apply to stuff outside that particular campaign world.

Death from massive damage. Since it ws mentioned, was a daft rule to port to 3.0 and onwards. Most people seem to ignore it anyway.

Multiclass and alignment restrictions. Just bad. The were bad in AD&D.

Alignment. Itself is a problem. It COULD be stripped out, to be honest, but I find at least the Good/Evil distinction is worth keeping in broad terms (Rolemaster, which doesn't have alignment, still has sets of "Evil" spell lists), so I have not made the effort, but THAT is a fundemental flawed system, the attempt to categotise the entire breadth of sapient/sentient creatures into nine convenient pigeon-holes. But alignment is not a big enough problem to require the amount of work involved, I feel, at least within the bounds of my own play. (Were 3.Aotrs something that could be published (and it SO can't, given it's a 3.5/PF1 hybrid!), that might warrent addressing.)

The action economy for single-monster encounters. That's not a fundemental flaw of 3.x so much as it is a simple factor of game design - as I say, it particularly applies to Rolemaster. In the end, there are only two solutions to this issue: a) don't do it ever or b) artificially and somewhat arbitarily inflate the single boss monster's statistics somehow. (Notably, almost all computer games do this, and there's a good reason.) This is just one area where you have to sacrifice some verisimitude for better gameplay, lets you have the aforementioned Rolemaster Problem. 3.x didn't really give you one, and it wasn't until 4E attempted with solo Monsters that I found a passable solution.

(My particular approach is to use a repeatable template that intergerises hitpoints and allows the boss monster to expend a block of hit points to fundementally "Iron Heart Surge" away Bad Stuff, or reroll a save at the cost of giving itself effectively a negative level. This has worked exceptionally well, given our parties are frequently 6-8 characters. Its mostly the opposite approach to 5E's legendaries actions, since it buffs defensive capabilities, but it works for us.)

EL and CR. EL in particular I see as essentially worthless, meaning less metric. CR is better used to determine XP rewards alone, rather than a balance metric, though it is a very rough approximation otherwise. I think that the fundemental assuption behind the "equal CR = 25% resources" was not an unreasonable design assumption to make - you have to give yourself a basis to work from, after all - but far too much weigh was appended to it, and it might have been better to confine the explanation to a little designer's intent sidebar rather than try and enshrine it. Funnily enough, I find, in the end, just like every OTHER game system which doesn't attempt to numerically define encounters, the best way to balance an encounter is by eye and experience. Because - let me let you into a little secret.

Points values kinda don't really work.

At leats, not to the degree you're always given the impression. Wargames use them, hell, even my wargames rules use them, but fundementally, all PV can EVER BE is a rough estimation. Even in wargames, where generally the breadth of possibilities is much smaller, the true "value" of something entirely depends on what else is with it, what terrain it is in, what the enemy composition is and what the players DOES. Points value is not actually a magic way to make a game balanced, it's a way to get it in the right ballpark of being balanced, and the more in-depth a statistical analysis is, the better ballpark you get. CR and EL are not remotely close, since especially as time as gone on, they're too shallow to attempt anything. The actual play (like a lot of 3.0/3.5/s early assumptions - see also how overpowered the Hexblade is...) didn't actually match up very well to that. It kind of works (I'm told), if you absolutely, strictly play to their base numbers and asusmptions of how classes work, but the moment you step outside that and take advantage of the massive depth of character generation options that is 3.x's single biggest advantage (or have More Than Four Friends), the usefulness of those features asymtotes to virtually nill. (I have never played with the base assumptions, since I have never run for a group of four people.)

(Whether PF's CR-is-an-XP-shorthand (as opposed to something which gives a scalar amount of XP) is better I don't know, since we won't be switching over to that system to try it until we're done with my current campaigns (sicne switching before would require me to completely recalculate the work I've already done for the bits for the first parts!)



The buffs, the maths, the high-intensity combats (less rocket tag, I find, and more a result of having large parties), the complex character design system, the legions of choices - that's all positives, as far as I believe. I WANT a system that require some mastery and stuff, I WANT a system where monsters and characters work from the same fundemental basis (and if anything, 3.x/PF1 perhaps doesn't got quite far ENOUGH in that regard, but 3.Aotrs was intended to not have to require too much regeneration of monsters given the APs and such I run, so...!) (Hell, I started to Do Monsters Mostly Proper in Rolemaster...) Generating monster stats is a good 50% of my fun iin questwriting; I emphatically DON'T want a system that's less in depoth than the character creation one. (Hell, I have been accused of preferring to use classed NPCs as the default enemies and that's a good part of the reason why...)



Getting 3.x to a point that fixes or starts to fix its problems requires (has required) a lot of work, but as far as I can see, there's nothing better on offer that wouldn't require EVEN MORE work to get to even the same starting point.

Sure, you could suggest lots of less-crunchy systems that work better for very narratively-driven games... But I'm not interested in those sorts of games. If I want something very rules-light, HeroQuest does that job well enough, to be honest, with about a page of some extra houseules if you want to be really excessive. (Look at my choice of systems: 3.x, then Rolemaster, 1st edition WFRP - though not for a good decade, probably now, and I've not touched AD&D since 2000.)




1My changes to the cure spells worked on the asssumption that any healing spell should heal more damage than any offensive spell at the same level should deal out, or there is little point in it existing in terms of the cleric's (et al) action economy. I thus changed it around so that what was the old +1/caster level (max 5/10/15/20 etc) became a base value, plus a number of D8 per caster level, to a max of half that. (As 5 hit points is fundementally a little bit better than a D8.) So CLW is 5+D8/level max 3D8 (so at max 3D8+5) and CCW is 20+D8/level max 10D8 (and so 10D8+20 at max). (Mass Cure Wounds dropped the D8s to 1/2 levels, so CLWM is 25+D8/2levels to a max of 7D8+25 etc).

(Inflict spells damaged was likewise increased, both for healing Undead and making them a decent offensive option.)

[Ashtagon]

The alterative approach leads you to Rolemaster, where it is impossible (without basically house-ruling fiat over backwards) to have a boss fight, since with a good roll or two, any character can kill almost anything. (It is statistically possilbe, if not staistically pluasible, for a hobbit armed with a bent knife to kill Morgoth.) I love Rolemaster, but that is one of ITS fundemental flaws.


But... what is a "boss" fight? Early D&D favoured mob fights, or a slightly more powerful boss supported by mobs (elite mobs, not mooks), at least in terms of the mix of monsters offered up in published adventures. The idea of a boss fight, where a single creature is significantly more powerful than others, is originally a CRPG idea. Which is fine if you are emulating CRPGs, but is a definite flaw if you aren't.

[Lirya]

Uh, "boss" fights as a concept have existed pretty much since the beginning. The prime example being Dragons. Looking at literature and mythology d&d draws inspiration from there are solo monsters all over the place (such as the Hydra that Heracles killed, or Shelob from LotR).

[Quertus]

If you ask me, well, I'll disagree with most of the posts in this thread (calling them the "good parts" of 3e). But I consider 3e's flaws to include…

Quick leveling. This is, I admit, partially a matter of taste. However, consider this - if it takes a party of 3 PC killing 20 goblins reach level 2 in 3e, but that same party would need to kill 500 goblins for the Wizard to reach level 2 in 2e, in which edition do you think your players will better know their character and its abilities, and be able to play the character faster?

Samey. To defeat the incorporeal creature, you *have* to have a magical weapon. To be competitive, every class *has* to love Christmas. It would have been so much better if the core classes included a muggle class who hates Christmas, with class features negating this samey feel. (I, personally, love Christmas, btw)

Shops. WBL is an absolutely great idea, on paper - it gives the players and the GM simple tools to know how to build a high-level character, complete with reasonable items. Absolutely brilliant. Characters being able to buy things at stores, however, was a terrible idea, turning the magical nature of items into muffins. Given modern technology, the concept of WBL could have been implemented as a Donjon-style treasure-hoards generator, complete with the concept of "your share" of the treasure. Or is this a matter of taste - do some consider the guarantee of building samey characters with samey Christmas trees a virtue, do some consider "what is the optimal loadout" to be a superior minigame to "what can I do with this"?

The illusion of equality + trap options ± "locked into failure". Clerics are good design: you can retool them to easily balance to the table, to fill needed roles, to not (personally or as a party) be "locked into failure". Fighters and Wizards are terrible design - they are filled with trap options, and, having chosen them in ignorance, you are rather strongly locked into failure.

Useless by design. Yes, you can be a noob and build a Fighter with no ability to deal with a Dragon or a Beholder - but that's on the player, not on the class / system. It's the Rogue who is actually the exemplar here: against some foes, they're a rock star; against others, they are all but useless (or were for many years, with a total of… 2 workarounds eventually published?). The inability to contribute as a Rogue (outside of particular build choices) isn't a matter of failing as a player - this is actually a matter of the class failing. IMO, rogue should have hit the shelves with a choice of ACF that changed their Sneak Attack to one of several similar abilities, complete with feat support, which between them covered damaging and disabling all creature types in various combinations, allowing them to be less predictable, and more able to at least contribute to most encounters.

Wizard improvements. In particular, automatic spell acquisition, no chance of being unable to learn spells, and the ever-troubling spell component pouches. Then some of the other Wizard improvements *also* shouldn't have happened, but which is up for debate.

Dynamic save DCs. In older editions, the higher level you got, the less effective spells became: saving throws improved, save DCs did not. I have no problem with high-level muggle rocket tag - in fact, I highly encourage it - but Wizards should be increasingly difficult and need to become wiser as they level.


much of the game is played away from the table, rather than at the table.

you're penalized if you don't plan out your character build in advance.

I personally strongly agree. However, I fear that this could be considered a matter of taste.

[Aotrs Commander]

Wizard improvements. In particular, automatic spell acquisition, no chance of being unable to learn spells, and the ever-troubling spell component pouches. Then some of the other Wizard improvements *also* shouldn't have happened, but which is up for debate.

I think this is a definitely matter of taste. I, personally, do not like "make the best of a bad job" situations at anytime. I don't like excessive RNG in games, and don't like randomised stats/hit points etc. I want to be able to build what I want, not be limited by "well, you wanted to play a fire wizard, but you failed to learn any fire spells."

I know some people do like that and it gives them creative inspiration ("you can be a failed fire wizard!"), but as someone who is habitually spat upon by RNG at every opporunity (in or out of game), I hate it, personally. (If I wanted to play a failed fire wizard, that would have been my starting concept.)

I want to decide what my character is and can (attempt to) do, by my decisions, not from what decisions the dice tell me I'm allowed to choose from.

Bad class design is any one that says "suck now" regardless of whether or not you are "OP later."

(Rolemaster's default spell acquisition is even worse - it has been decribed as a thief spending 1 [skill point] to gain a 5% chance to gain [10 ranks] of [Hide/Move Silently or Stealth]." Have fun - if you are lucky - playing RAW mage when your can spend your whole first level spell (singular) being able to either be a torch or a kettle, depending on whether you actually learn Light Law or Fire Law! as your one spell list! And probably only once per day at that!

That sort of thing biases one.)



Agree on Spell Component Pouches, though. We tactily obviate them, since I think anyone ever has remembered to buy one or pay any attention to non-expensive material components until such time as it mechanically matters. (Unless you meant "should pay MORE attention to them," then I disagree!)




Dynamic save DCs. In older editions, the higher level you got, the less effective spells became: saving throws improved, save DCs did not. I have no problem with high-level muggle rocket tag - in fact, I highly encourage it - but Wizards should be increasingly difficult and need to become wiser as they level.

Rolemaster has the opposite problem - until you hit stupidly high level, casters as next-to-useless. (Notoriously, in our now-retired primary party, the Archmage - already the most powerful caster class, since it basically go to pick whichever spells it liked from any source0 had to be re-generated completely to say competative to people that Had Guns. The most powerful thing she could do before was just make them better via haste and that was about it.)

Of the two, I think the disparity in D&D is easier to fix by buffing the noncasters.




I personally strongly agree. However, I fear that this could be considered a matter of taste.

Definitely; I personally find that to be a feature, not a bug.

As I say about all CRPGs, a game that doesn't have me spend at LEAST a hour on character creation isn't trying.



You can certainly argue I'm a mechanics focussed wargamer over a roleplayer, and that's not inaccurate (I always do say I'm a wargamer (and in a small niche type at that, even) who roleplays) and I certainly lack the understanding of character and stuff some people do... But that's because, when you get down to it, I'm fundementally a one-dimensional sort of person ANYWAY... But that's what makes 3.x/PF1/3.Aotrs my system of choice, at the end of the day. It's a LEGO set, only with stats and numbers, which instead of making starships with (which is really the basic and only purpose of LEGO), I make dudes to fight other dudes, or places for the other dudes to explore or puzzles for them to solve.

(No, I don't tend to do much in the way of character drama, was that not obvious...?)

[Ashtagon]

Uh, "boss" fights as a concept have existed pretty much since the beginning. The prime example being Dragons. Looking at literature and mythology d&d draws inspiration from there are solo monsters all over the place (such as the Hydra that Heracles killed, or Shelob from LotR).

I purposely ignore the literature and mythology because a lot of what people think inspired D&D actually... didn't. G Gygax did include a list of his inspirations in the 1e books if you want to check.

And no, Shelob wasn't a boss fight, because she wasn't actually fought. Shelob was a puzzle/trap encounter to be bypassed, not a monster to be slain.

Reviewing my collection of AD&D modules, and excluding Dragonlance (because dragons were kinda showcased on purpose there), none seem to have a dragon as the big boss that caps the adventure. The only one I find (quickly) that has dragons is Module G3 (and that only because I ran that adventure many years ago). There's a pair of false dragons, an illusion of a dragon, and one real ancient red dragon, on the same dungeon level but as separate encounters. Granted, that dragon is a spellcaster, and is a solo encounter, but considering that other encounters on that same level include:

* 56 trolls
* a gorgon hiding 'inside' the dragon illusion
* 8 fire giants

I'm not sure the dragon was all that boss-like either. Certainly, it wasn't notably tougher than these other encounters.

fwiw, 2e made a big deal about powering up dragons compared to 1e, in part because dragons were treated as incidental monsters in 1e rather than the game's namesake icon.

[Eldan]

It varies by table, but I think it should take more than 1-2 rounds before the combat degenerates from a conflict to a cleanup.

Honestly, I don't. D&D combat can decay into really boring, long slogs, too, where a round takes half an hour. If combat can be resolved by everyone making 2-3 smart tactical decisions and then it's decided who had the better plan, that's fine by me.

[Morty]

I'd say 3E is composed mostly of fundamental flaws with little in-between. But in the interest of keeping it constructive I'll mention something that came up with the "level 6 fighter versus a dozen mooks" example: the complete lack of anything resembling a coherent theme or power curve.

The game doesn't know what it wants to be. It's painfully clear that the first 5-7 levels got more attention than the rest of the level range put together. The extreme power available to high-level characters isn't properly reflected by the setting. The fiction gushes about how powerful casters are, but non-casters are basically treated as never rising past being action heroes. A level 6 fighter can already take on dozens of soldiers or guards but it's rarely if ever acknowledged. The extreme imbalance of course means your practical power level can end up all over the place.

[Thunder999]

Quick leveling. This is, I admit, partially a matter of taste. However, consider this - if it takes a party of 3 PC killing 20 goblins reach level 2 in 3e, but that same party would need to kill 500 goblins for the Wizard to reach level 2 in 2e, in which edition do you think your players will better know their character and its abilities, and be able to play the character faster?

I really disagree here, being stuck at level 1 for that long would be horrible, the faster we get out of level 1 the better, most people don't have their fun class features yet, everyone dies to a single lucky hit because noone has enough hp, not even the barbarian with his d12. Unless you're actually new to the game you don't really need to learn all your abilities anew anyway. Low levels are just there because most stories are about rising up from humble beginnings. Personally I'm fond of starting everyone off at level 3.


Wizard improvements. In particular, automatic spell acquisition, no chance of being unable to learn spells, and the ever-troubling spell component pouches. Then some of the other Wizard improvements *also* shouldn't have happened, but which is up for debate.

Again I really disagree, you shouldn't be dependant on random chance or a generous GM to have a functional class. A wizard who doesn't get his spells at level up is a waste of space, spell component pouches are fine, you shouldn't be expected to track random jokes like bat guano. This goes hand in hand with your point on wealth by level, the less RNG involved the better. Ideally the only RNG is your saves and attack rolls.


Dynamic save DCs. In older editions, the higher level you got, the less effective spells became: saving throws improved, save DCs did not. I have no problem with high-level muggle rocket tag - in fact, I highly encourage it - but Wizards should be increasingly difficult and need to become wiser as they level.

Why should casters suck at high level?

[Kurald Galain]

Quick leveling. This is, I admit, partially a matter of taste. However, consider this - if it takes a party of 3 PC killing 20 goblins reach level 2 in 3e, but that same party would need to kill 500 goblins for the Wizard to reach level 2 in 2e, in which edition do you think your players will better know their character and its abilities, and be able to play the character faster?
You forget that in 2E, wizards explicitly get experience for each spell cast, and everyone explicitly gets XP for roleplaying and having good ideas. None of that is the case in 3E. Nobody has ever leveled up by killing 500 goblins :smalltongue:


It would have been so much better if the core classes included a muggle class who hates Christmas
They're called druids :smallamused:


trap options, and, having chosen them in ignorance, you are rather strongly locked into failure. ... It's the Rogue who is actually the exemplar here: against some foes, they're a rock star; against others, they are all but useless
Both fixed in PF. Like I said earlier, "It's kind of funny how, after a decade, some people still haven't noticed that their issues have been improved and/or fixed."

[Xervous]

Healing.

In combat healing should be an option worth considering but never the default choice. As it stands not enough was done for in combat.

Out of combat healing was a different problem in that it was, outside of aggressive DM fiat, impossible to deny a party from chugging wand charges to eliminate the concern of hp attrition. Furthermore if a DM did deny such methods it often crippled Martials of all things because of system assumptions on everyone being a damage sponge to some degree. With few ways to meaningfully threaten attrition the only way to make typical combats feel like they mattered was dropping PCs to low or negative HP with moderate consistency.

[Condé]

Too many different rules in different books, written by different people over almost 7 years with rewritten rules. (3.0 -> 3.5)

Oh and I'm pretty sure a lot content weren't play-tested as it is today by standards. I mean, it's obvious. Some classes features are so convoluted or barely functionnal.

And the last things is the room for interpretation... RAW VS RAI, because of poorly-worded features.


These are flaws. But it's mostly because things are not trying to be perfectly balanced, some classes are broken, some are purely flavorful, because so many authors put their love into the game and you have so many possibilites as a player, I still really love 3.X. It's a mess.
But an enjoyable one.

[Telok]

I really disagree here, being stuck at level 1 for that long would be horrible, the faster we get out of level 1 the better, most people don't have their fun class features yet, everyone dies to a single lucky hit because noone has enough hp, not even the barbarian with his d12. Unless you're actually new to the game you don't really need to learn all your abilities anew anyway. Low levels are just there because most stories are about rising up from humble beginnings. Personally I'm fond of starting everyone off at level 3.

First you weren't stuck at 1st that long. Gp to xp meant that two random potions and a chest of silver pieces could a thief you into level 2 pretty quick, and a wizard well over half way to level 2. Of course then you need a money sink because pcs have piles of money, so ad&d had training costs, hirelings, and eventually building a domain. And starting at level 3 was a thing, an official thing too. Of course the real point wasn't 1st level, it was not going from chump to demi-god in 4 months of adventuring and what having that sort of thing would logically do to a setting.


Again I really disagree, you shouldn't be dependant on random chance or a generous GM to have a functional class. A wizard who doesn't get his spells at level up is a waste of space, spell component pouches are fine, you shouldn't be expected to track random jokes like bat guano. This goes hand in hand with your point on wealth by level, the less RNG involved the better. Ideally the only RNG is your saves and attack rolls.

A wizard who doesn't automatically get all the best spells isn't automatically worthless, just like a fighter without the perfect magic items isn't worthless. It was a way to keep spells powerful and fun while also keeping the casters power level in check. Blindly removing that got us 3.p quadratic wizards, whacking the spell power got us (to me) boring 4e magic that was basically variations on shooting aoe arrows, sometimes with one or two round minor debuffs.


Why should casters suck at high level?
They didn't. They just couldn't assume that the opposition would fail saving throws. Without scaling save dcs and with higher level monsters getting better saves you cut down on the 3e/5e thing where a 2nd level spell on a weak save can shut down the boss monster almost all the time. Plus your high level fighters stop being chumps to low end mook casters dropping will save spells on them. It depreciated damage spells and direct save-or-die/suck effects on big solo monsters and major npcs at high levels, mobs of mooks were both still threats and fell to the spells just fine or you could use indirect attack magic.

[stack]

Requiring items to meet expected math targets. If you don't assume PCs have +X AC from amulet/ring, +Y saves from cloak, etc. at level Z, then you can scrap those items and use the space for something other than math fixers.

[Elves]

I'd say 3E is composed mostly of fundamental flaws with little in-between. But in the interest of keeping it constructive I'll mention something that came up with the "level 6 fighter versus a dozen mooks" example: the complete lack of anything resembling a coherent theme or power curve.

Don't worry about keeping it constructive, go right ahead. What sucks?

[NigelWalmsley]

It depends on what you mean by "fundamental". I would argue that things like class imbalance are not "fundamental" flaws of the system. It would be quite easy to write a set of classes using the 3e rules engine that were balanced (indeed, you can pick many balanced subsets of classes from the ones that do exist). I think for something to be a fundamental flaw, it needs to be either intrinsic to the system or an explicit design goal. With that distinction in mind, there are a few things I can think of that would probably qualify:

1. Magic Items. Specifically, the decision to move from random magic items to WBL, and math that presumes magic item bonuses. I think this was an interesting experiment at the time, but in hindsight it's a paradigm that just doesn't work as well. Numeric bonuses are less interesting than abilities, and in particular having the numeric bonuses be baked into the expected opposition makes getting items into a Red Queen's Race. Random items make characters and campaigns more memorable.
2. Open Multiclassing. This just doesn't work. There is no feasible way to write classes such that Open Multiclassing is balanced, and the proliferation of Theurge PrCs indicates that it wasn't even allowing people to play hybrid characters effectively.
3. High-Level Skills. The skill system in 3e actually works pretty well at low levels. The numbers make sense, and you get outputs that work (3e is actually an incredibly solid system at low levels). The problem is that it doesn't scale well. Numbers get too big to be sensible, bonuses diverge (even between people who are nominally specialists in the same thing), and level (ironically) doesn't have a meaningful impact. Frankly, I think the problem is demanding one system for superhuman feats and regular people.
4. Feats. One feat every three levels was simply not enough, and feats were skewed between character-defining abilities (e.g. Leadership, DMM, Natural Spell) and minor fluff (e.g. Alertness, Educated).
5. Hit Point Bloat. 3e dramatically increased the amount of HP things get. This made combat harder to track and made damaging-dealing worse, for no appreciable benefit.
6. Encounter Guidelines. 1v4 just doesn't work well from an action economy perspective, and makes challenge scaling awkward. CR works well enough in general, but the balance point it's aiming for is generally inferior to something like 4e, which assumes most encounters will be even or leave the PCs outnumbered.
7. Alignment. I'm not sure how fair this is, because the dumb parts of alignment are largely flavorful and the things that are mechanical in nature are mostly fine, but alignment as D&D uses it is really, really dumb.

There were definitely other issues (and other things you could cluster under those issues), but those are the ones that I would call fundamental errors that come to mind off the top of my head.


Oh and I'm pretty sure a lot content weren't play-tested as it is today by standards. I mean, it's obvious. Some classes features are so convoluted or barely functionnal.

3e was playtested more than most (probably all) other editions. There is, particularly in 3.0, a great deal of math that is actually quite elegant.

[soullos]

I've always hated how low magic item DCs were. Yay, you got this awesome new +3 magical sword that drains the enemies life when you hit (as an example) and they can negate with... DC 14 Fort save... Lame. Can I swap out the life drain bit for something more useful and consistent?? I've always thought magic item DCs should scale based on the user wielding it or using the item, not locked in from the creator no exceptions. Like DC 10 + 1/2 HD + Cha (give some benefit to that good ol' dump stat Cha; and if that's lower just use the base DC listed in the description). It's more fun when magic items that call for saves are always going to be useful and not relegated to shop fodder.

[Telok]

3e was playtested more than most (probably all) other editions. There is, particularly in 3.0, a great deal of math that is actually quite elegant.

Yeah, up to about level 10 it all hangs togather pretty well. Even despite the trap feats vs. op feats, wbl pain in the rear, and "i know all the spells" casters. It's somewhere after level 9 that the numbers start to go crazy.

[Elves]

2. Open Multiclassing. This just doesn't work. There is no feasible way to write classes such that Open Multiclassing is balanced, and the proliferation of Theurge PrCs indicates that it wasn't even allowing people to play hybrid characters effectively.
In my view it's the source of the edition's greatest virtue (the intricate character building) but it's also unlikely to be copied by many games going forward just because of the huge Pandora's box it opens. In that sense it will probably continue to be 3e's defining feature.

I don't think the fact of some multiclassing options being better than others is a bad thing, and as far as dips very few are overpowered (some of the most popular ones are only popular because of system flaws: spirit lion totem barbarian gives something that should be a basic part of the rules, and fighter 1-2 is in large part attractive because of too few feats and stupid feat taxes). But it does mean you always have to keep that issue in mind, means you can't frontload, and means your game will never be nice, neat, and clean ever again.

[AvatarVecna]

Feata are balanced around the Fighter. Fighter 20 gets 18 feats, and the devs have an idea of where they wanr Fighter 20 to be, so core feats are balanced to be ~1/11th of the difference between where they want warrior amd where they want fighter. 1/11th of that is crap And the rest of the feat system is balanced against that, because otherwise fighter feats would be worse than nonfighter feats. (Well for non-magic feats anyway.) This results in "feats worth taking" being divided into three cateogies:
Feats that give you a gradually-improving effect
Feats that give you a new capability
Feats that give you a flat bomus to init

The other 99% of non-magic feats are split between giving a constant small flat bonus that never gets better, or a circumstantial flat bonus that's big but too circumstantial to be useful.

[NigelWalmsley]

Yeah, up to about level 10 it all hangs togather pretty well. Even despite the trap feats vs. op feats, wbl pain in the rear, and "i know all the spells" casters. It's somewhere after level 9 that the numbers start to go crazy.

There's a reason E6 is so popular. It's my honest opinion that, considered only for what it does and without the flaws of the rest of the system, D&D 3e capped at somewhere in the 4-8 range is the best the game has ever been.


In my view it's the source of the edition's greatest virtue (the intricate character building) but it's also unlikely to be copied by many games going forward just because of the huge Pandora's box it opens. In that sense it will probably continue to be 3e's defining feature.

The thing is, you don't need Open Multiclassing for intricate character building. All does is give you option at every level. You could do the same thing by giving a feat at every level. And the vast, vast majority of those options are functionally nonexistent. Have you ever seen someone play a Wizard 5/Cleric 2/Rogue 1/Wu Jen 2/Bard 3? A Duskblade 2/Druid 4/Abjurant Champion 1/Samurai 3? Of course not. The ratio of "options anyone has ever used" to "options that nominally exist" on Open Multiclassing is quite possibly the worst of any mechanic that has every existed.


I don't think the fact of some multiclassing options being better than others is a bad thing, and as far as dips very few are overpowered (some of the most popular ones are only popular because of system flaws: spirit lion totem barbarian gives something that should be a basic part of the rules, and fighter 1-2 is in large part attractive because of too few feats and stupid feat taxes). But it does mean you always have to keep that issue in mind, means you can't frontload, and means your game will never be nice, neat, and clean ever again.

But dips aren't Open Multiclassing. If all you want is to be able to have a character who is "a little bit Fighter" or "a little bit Rogue", you can do that in any number of ways that aren't Open Multiclassing. What that gets you is the Dread Necromancer 2/Barbarian 1/Ranger 3/Human Paragon 1, and who's played one of those?

[Kaiwen]

But dips aren't Open Multiclassing.

Dips aren't open multiclassing, but open multiclassing enables dipping, a bit like how falling off a cliff isn't the same as being able to walk around but being able to walk around enables falling off cliffs.



What that gets you is the Dread Necromancer 2/Barbarian 1/Ranger 3/Human Paragon 1, and who's played one of those?

Again, something enabled by open multiclassing but isn't representative of open multiclassing. And arguably, the ability to make mistakes is one of the most important parts of any RPG.

[Zanos]

The thing is, you don't need Open Multiclassing for intricate character building. All does is give you option at every level. You could do the same thing by giving a feat at every level. And the vast, vast majority of those options are functionally nonexistent. Have you ever seen someone play a Wizard 5/Cleric 2/Rogue 1/Wu Jen 2/Bard 3? A Duskblade 2/Druid 4/Abjurant Champion 1/Samurai 3? Of course not. The ratio of "options anyone has ever used" to "options that nominally exist" on Open Multiclassing is quite possibly the worst of any mechanic that has every existed.
Completely disagree. Just because the system allows for ineffective combinations doesn't make it bad. And I've definitely seen hundreds of real and effective character builds that were combinations of 5+ classes.

[Quertus]

I think this is a definitely matter of taste. I, personally, do not like "make the best of a bad job" situations at anytime. I don't like excessive RNG in games, and don't like randomised stats/hit points etc. I want to be able to build what I want, not be limited by "well, you wanted to play a fire wizard, but you failed to learn any fire spells."

I know some people do like that and it gives them creative inspiration ("you can be a failed fire wizard!"), but as someone who is habitually spat upon by RNG at every opporunity (in or out of game), I hate it, personally. (If I wanted to play a failed fire wizard, that would have been my starting concept.)

I want to decide what my character is and can (attempt to) do, by my decisions, not from what decisions the dice tell me I'm allowed to choose from.

Bad class design is any one that says "suck now" regardless of whether or not you are "OP later."

(Rolemaster's default spell acquisition is even worse - it has been decribed as a thief spending 1 [skill point] to gain a 5% chance to gain [10 ranks] of [Hide/Move Silently or Stealth]." Have fun - if you are lucky - playing RAW mage when your can spend your whole first level spell (singular) being able to either be a torch or a kettle, depending on whether you actually learn Light Law or Fire Law! as your one spell list! And probably only once per day at that!

That sort of thing biases one.)



Agree on Spell Component Pouches, though. We tactily obviate them, since I think anyone ever has remembered to buy one or pay any attention to non-expensive material components until such time as it mechanically matters. (Unless you meant "should pay MORE attention to them," then I disagree!)





Rolemaster has the opposite problem - until you hit stupidly high level, casters as next-to-useless. (Notoriously, in our now-retired primary party, the Archmage - already the most powerful caster class, since it basically go to pick whichever spells it liked from any source0 had to be re-generated completely to say competative to people that Had Guns. The most powerful thing she could do before was just make them better via haste and that was about it.)

Of the two, I think the disparity in D&D is easier to fix by buffing the noncasters.





Definitely; I personally find that to be a feature, not a bug.

As I say about all CRPGs, a game that doesn't have me spend at LEAST a hour on character creation isn't trying.



You can certainly argue I'm a mechanics focussed wargamer over a roleplayer, and that's not inaccurate (I always do say I'm a wargamer (and in a small niche type at that, even) who roleplays) and I certainly lack the understanding of character and stuff some people do... But that's because, when you get down to it, I'm fundementally a one-dimensional sort of person ANYWAY... But that's what makes 3.x/PF1/3.Aotrs my system of choice, at the end of the day. It's a LEGO set, only with stats and numbers, which instead of making starships with (which is really the basic and only purpose of LEGO), I make dudes to fight other dudes, or places for the other dudes to explore or puzzles for them to solve.

(No, I don't tend to do much in the way of character drama, was that not obvious...?)

I always love intelligent disagreement, as it provides the opportunity that I'll learn something :smallwink:


"make the best of a bad job"

Well, this is *exactly* the kind of bad attitude that I think 3e (and other tight balance / optimization games) are responsible for. It may be *optimal* to defeat the scenario with 10 Protoss Carriers, or 10 Atlas mechs, or 5 moxes and a Time Walk, but that doesn't make 100 Hydralisks, or 10 King Crabs, or Atraxa poison counters *bad*.

Yes, there are objectively really bad things (urban mechs, muck dwellers, and 4e :smalltongue:), but "not the bleeding edge best" is not the same as "horrifically bad". After all, people have had fun playing in systems other than 2e D&D, playing with players who aren't me. I rest my case. :smallwink:


wanted to play a fire wizard, but you failed to learn any fire spells

Well, the problem is, D&D doesn't have a "Fire Wizard" - or, rather, most every edition actually does, but that's rarely the "guy who failed to learn any Fire spells".

Trying to make a vanilla Wizard something that it's not is fighting against the system. Don't do that?



If I wanted to play a failed fire wizard, that would have been my starting concept

And how, in your mind, (other than Roy) would you picture the concept of "failed fire mage" manifesting in 3e (or 3.Aotrs)?


I want to be able to build what I want

I don't like excessive RNG in games, and don't like randomised stats/hit points etc. ,

Where do you draw the line?

There's "your character"… which, OK, I can completely understand (even if I don't… hmmm… exclusively agree) wanting to have full control over, with no influence from RNG.

But "your character's items" - your loot - aren't "your character", any more than the BBEG you fought to get them. "Your items" are part of your history, not really something inherently under player control.

I'm all for "Player Agency", but that doesn't mean I want to roleplay the BBEG and get him to surrender to me, or roleplay the Emperor and get him to hand over his fleet of Star Destroyers.

So, personally, I draw the line of what I believe players should have control over to exclude things like "loot" and "items" outside what is available to be purchased - which I believe should generally exclude D&D magical items. Loot should be different and useful and magical, not samey and optimized and a commodity.

But "which spells / techniques the character is able to master"? That's a much more interesting discussion.

Naruto struggled most with creating clones; that's no small part of why he masters Shadow Clone Jutsu. I struggled most with math (at age 4-); that's why I'm the math genius I am today. A generalist who always wanted Fire spells, but initially struggled to meet their goals? You could play that character as a quitter, or have them keep trying to learn those spells every level, or even invent their own custom, better Fire spells.

I see this as an opportunity for characterization, rather than a problem.

It feels like 3.Aotrs and the implications for your characters you've made in this thread show some dissonance between your personality and the way you roleplay your characters in that regard?


As I say about all CRPGs, a game that doesn't have me spend at LEAST a hour on character creation isn't trying.

That's not… our? At least *my* issue. It's not about how long it takes making who you *are*, it's that you have to carefully plan out *who you will be*, else you fail at character creation.

[Tvtyrant]

Obviously if we're around here we like or have some interest in the system, but what do you view as the fundamental flaws and shortcomings of the D&D 3e game? Pathfinder is fair game too.

I'm not talking about specific things like "x class is badly designed" or "too few feats", but about underlying things like "feats are a bad idea [for whatever reason]".

AC and attack bonus scale independently, so AC falls behind the first attack dramatically.

To-hit penalties for additional attacks are bad in general and too harsh in 3.5. Either the character gains almost nothing from spamming attacks or finds a way to ignore them.

Saves don't map well to spell DCs, it takes a lot of investment to not have one save so low you practically autofail.

HP is bloated, damage multipliers are bloated. Leads to things like Monks and Fireball Wizards being almost pointless while Shocktroopers oneshot dragons.

Touch AC is too low and doesn't scale at all.

[Kurald Galain]

AC and attack bonus scale independently, so AC falls behind the first attack dramatically.
That's another good thing from 3E, because it leads to different gameplay at higher level than at lower.

Because let's face it, they changed this in 4E: by adding half level to all your attack rolls and half level to the defenses of all enemies. And then people realized, gee whiz, this sure is pointless. And that led to 5E's decision of having the numbers barely growing at all, which means your character never really improves, and still struggles with the exact same tasks and enemies seven levels later.

Some numbers scaling while other numbers don't is a good thing.

[Ignimortis]

AC and attack bonus scale independently, so AC falls behind the first attack dramatically.

To-hit penalties for additional attacks are bad in general and too harsh in 3.5. Either the character gains almost nothing from spamming attacks or finds a way to ignore them.

Saves don't map well to spell DCs, it takes a lot of investment to not have one save so low you practically autofail.

HP is bloated, damage multipliers are bloated. Leads to things like Monks and Fireball Wizards being almost pointless while Shocktroopers oneshot dragons.

Touch AC is too low and doesn't scale at all.

Saves scale perfectly fine. You generally have at least one good save and good relevant stat, and with Steadfast Determination, two most important saves (Fort/Will) scale off a stat that everyone wants to improve. Without it, you have to improve WIS, but it's still not gonna fall behind severely.

If you're following WBL, you have a +2 to all saves very early on, and +5 is also obtained much earlier than AC bonuses. Mid-level (10 to 12) characters have +7 to all saves from items alone, plus at least +3 from levels, so you're at +10 to any save - if your natural DEX/CON/WIS are +0, which is very rare, and you should probably have at least +12 to all saves, more if you focus on CON/DEX/WIS. A spellcaster at that level has spell DCs at around 22-24 without minmaxing, which gives you a 40-50% chance of passing the save. Even if your Cloak/Vest of Resistance is at +3, which is behind the curve, you still have a somewhat decent chance of passing your LOW save.

Your high save, which is generally synergized with your main stat in some form? It's at +7 from levels, +5 to +7 from stat, +3 to +5 from Resistance...so basically you have a +15 to +19 to it without any significant investment. That's a 55%+ chance to pass that save.

If AC scaled the same as the first attack on a full attack, it would be impossible to hit people with iteratives. Touch AC scales just fine - you get more from DEX and deflection bonuses, which means your Ring of Protection works for that. There are also means to get more touch AC - shields in particular have feats devoted to that. It's not meant to be anywhere close to regular AC, because Touch AC is usually utilized by things that have much worse BAB and attack bonuses than what's required to hit normal AC.

HP scaling does make blasting bad, but I feel like there's more of a problem with Fireball and other blasting spells not being updated from 2e. Monks don't have damage problems, they have to-hit and Flurry of Blows being bad for a skirmisher problems.

[Elves]

That's another good thing from 3E, because it leads to different gameplay at higher level than at lower.

Because let's face it, they changed this in 4E: by adding half level to all your attack rolls and half level to the defenses of all enemies. And then people realized, gee whiz, this sure is pointless. And that led to 5E's decision of having the numbers barely growing at all, which means your character never really improves, and still struggles with the exact same tasks and enemies seven levels later.

Some numbers scaling while other numbers don't is a good thing.

To be fair you can have the numbers remain on par with each other and still create different gameplay through riders, mobility, BFC and other effects.

Nerfing attack does run into the problem that it nerfs direct damage more.

[Kurald Galain]

To be fair you can have the numbers remain on par with each other and still create different gameplay through riders, mobility, BFC and other effects.
Sure, but neither 4E nor 5E nor P2 does that.

[Morty]

2. Open Multiclassing. This just doesn't work. There is no feasible way to write classes such that Open Multiclassing is balanced, and the proliferation of Theurge PrCs indicates that it wasn't even allowing people to play hybrid characters effectively.

I see open multiclassing as an attempt to make rigid class/level system open-ended, which works about as well as you'd expect. It's indicative of 3E's generally confused identity as it attempts to be flexible and customizable while holding on to one of the most restrictive character creation systems ever conceived.


That's another good thing from 3E, because it leads to different gameplay at higher level than at lower.

Because let's face it, they changed this in 4E: by adding half level to all your attack rolls and half level to the defenses of all enemies. And then people realized, gee whiz, this sure is pointless. And that led to 5E's decision of having the numbers barely growing at all, which means your character never really improves, and still struggles with the exact same tasks and enemies seven levels later.

Some numbers scaling while other numbers don't is a good thing.

I don't think the main (and indeed only) mundane defence value being increasingly harder to keep relevant on high levels is a compelling alternative.

[Fizban]

Another angle on this is things like prepared spellcasters' spell choices for the day, or even class choices when going into a campaign being perhaps more important to success or failure than the actual decisions made during game.
Learning to what spells to prepare (or how to prepare to know what spells to prepare) is part of the game. The player is expected to learn how to be a good adventurer- because if you ask me, everyone always having the answer is super boring. Class choices going into the campaign are a bigger problem, except the DM is supposed to okay those characters, and would know if one of them is going to be useless. Even so, someone starting as a rogue and finding undead for miles and miles could just stop being a rogue- take fighter or ranger levels, only sprinkling in another rogue level when necessary to catch up on disable device. The multiclassing system allows characters to change their direction mid-campaign.

For a specific example, lets take incorporeal enemies. If you have a magic weapon or you use magic to attack, you can fight them. If you don't, you can't fight them. Now lets re-imagine . . . So if you're playing a rogue in an undead campaign, suddenly you're trying to be a Witcher and coming up with blade oils, keepsakes from their life, whatever the counter is. Rather than just sitting on the sidelines and regretting the choices you made 3 months prior.
Incorporeal undead are always a funny sticking point to me, because they're something the game actually does arm every party against. At least, the standard party, which is presumed to be good or neutral and has a Cleric. Who can Turn Undead, or use spontaneous Cure Wounds, which as pointed out in another thread ignore incorporeality.

Again, you can sort of fix this by very careful GMing - if you have a low level party deal with flying creatures, make sure there are spaces in the area where there isn't enough headroom for flight. If you have an undead-heavy plotline, make load-bearing necromancers that the rogues can target (or warn players in advance), etc. But it'd be nicer if there were more system-level things that would help players focus on 'how can I solve this situation I'm in now?' rather than 'how am I going to be able to solve every hypothetical situation I might be in later?'
The system-level solution for flying monsters is to bring a bow. There isn't one in the PHB for rogues vs no sneak attack, but that's because rogues aren't actually supposed to depend on sneak attack. Not even every round, let alone every attack. They can swing or shoot just like everyone else, and whether people admit it or not that damage is not zero.

If anything, the real point of sneak attack is in punishing monsters that "just walk past" or grapple or swallow whole. Standard undead don't actually have the biggest hit points due to their lack of con bonus (this could even be a secondary reason for why SA doesn't work on them), you shouldn't need huge damage bonuses to fight them. And you can, ya know, just buy (or quest for) a bane weapon if that's a problem. Or remind the DM that the DMG explicitly gives them the job of ensuring the party has sufficient magic items to meet their challenges, and your rogue is suspiciously unable to meet the challenges the DM is fielding with their current magic items.

When people expect sneak attack to work on everything, it means they expect way more damage on every attack than the monsters are actually written for- because they'll want that damage against every monster, and also on every attack, on multiple attacks, in addition to as much other damage as they can buy, and there's a high chance they're comparing themselves to 2:1 power attack with mysteriously un-impacted accuracy. Myself, I put those ACFs on the ban list for missing the point.

The idea that past level 6 or so, a fighter can stare down a squadron of town guard armed with bows at the ready at point blank range, challenge them to give it their best shot, and then proceed to wipe the floor with them.
I mean, that's actually not even that unrealistic. Arrow barrages against heavy infantry in plate mostly just bounced off. Maybe if they're heavy enough crossbows that can actually pierce armor, and the fighter is actually unable to move, they could get multiple hits. Otherwise, probably only one of them actually gets a square shot and the rest bounce off the moving armored target. This isn't really a factor of the 6th level fighter either, it's a factor of their armor class, which doesn't even scale with level. An elite 1st level fighter in plate could do the same thing, or a non-elite warrior if all the shots miss.


What I do think is a problem with skills is that some abilities or spells make them completely irrelevant. All day flight makes climbing pretty useless and blindsight is quite literally a 'lolno' to hide checks.
Which is why I like to note that Blindsight was not originally a spell on anyone's lists or accessible to PCs in any way at all short of Shapechange- it's a monster ability to keep stealth from being omnipotent that some fool made a spell out of because they thought it looked like See Invisibility, and welp there goes the neighborhood. Similarly the Darkstalker feat is an instant ban in my book. There are lot of spells where it's easy to just push them back two levels, and people will still say they're awesome so clearly the nerf was warranted. Though of course, all-day flight as an easy spell is a 3.5 update.


To me, the main flaw is tiny distinctions that rarely matter. Like, there's no good reason to have both ability damage and ability drain,
I'm with you on some of those, but damage and drain are pretty different. One naturally recovers in a few days, the other is effectively a supernatural curse that requires a specific spell, with a gp component, to remove. It's how you have people crippled by supernatural effects without making everything an arbitrary curse variant.

Too many bonus types in general, and some of them arbitrarily stack with themselves whereas others don't.
The only typed bonus that stacks is dodge? I dunno, the whole point of multiple bonus types is to give people options. If all buffs stack, then you need either an arbitrary limit, or cut the list of buffs down to almost nothing. Heck, the bonus type system is one of the most resilient: if three different authors all print the same feat in slightly different ways which stack, you get an uber build. If three different authors print something that gives a sacred bonus, they don't stack, and balance is only upset as bad as the worst one, while still stacking with all the common bonus types.

Too many equipment slots;
Oh man, equipment slots. I've got pages of notes going around in circles on how to try fixing that one. I like equipment slots, but it's just flat impossible to reconcile all the different methods of thought one can use to justify X being a slot with having a limited set, most particularly when you need to adapt an existing set that is already a mashup that also requires a specific number of items as part of the expected loadout. It's maddening :smalleek:

Finally, the system tends to vastly overvalue (and therefore overprice) cool abilities like forced movement and bleed damage (edit) and life drain, and therefore these rarely see play. Something else it overvalues is any kind of at-will magic, as well as "role switching" (e.g. PF's medium class).
If you want staple hazards like cliffs or lava pits or core Wall of Fire spells, forced movement can't just be easy. The core of the game is based on tactical combat and resource management, so at-will magic kinda breaks it into tiny little pieces if you don't keep a firm leash on things- creating an even worse haves and have-nots situation.


No, is suboptimal [i]in 3.5 but an entirely valid strategy in PF. It's kind of funny how, after a decade, some people still haven't noticed that their issues have been improved and/or fixed.
I mean, I think it's funny how it was perfectly fine even before PF and "no one" cared. I literally had a combat healer build for my Red Hand of Doom party, and could only threaten them with save-or-die tier damage or by running them out of spells. But when the points of comparison for "the internet" are monsters optimized to fight uberchargers and their ilk. . .


Too many different rules in different books, written by different people over almost 7 years with rewritten rules. (3.0 -> 3.5)
Oh and I'm pretty sure a lot content weren't play-tested as it is today by standards. I mean, it's obvious. Some classes features are so convoluted or barely functionnal.
And that's the big one. The "game" is wildly inconsistent, because it effectively has a dozen or more DMs just shoving in mechanics with no regard for each other. The flaws of the original 3.0 game are one thing, then 3.5 has some new ideas which lead to systemic changes creating more flaws, and each new book adds their own. Attempting to treat every book as a vaccuum had some obvious sense, but very quickly lead to even more obvious problems.


HP scaling does make blasting bad, but I feel like there's more of a problem with Fireball and other blasting spells not being updated from 2e.
The thing that makes blasting scale so poorly is that it stops scaling. 1st-2nd level spells deal 1d6/2 levels, 3rd level spells deal 1d6/level, and spells above that deal. . . 1d6/level. The caps go up, but the actual level based damage doesn't.



Which is further screwed up by what I'll name a fundamental problem of 3.5: Scorching. Gorram. Ray. And the pivot that borked damage spells.

Read the 3.0 PHB spells, and you'll quickly find that there is in fact no such thing as a 1d6/level no-save spell until 6th level with Freezing Sphere's ray mode. And yet, 3.5 suddenly puts a 1d6/level no-save spell all the way down at 2nd. Sure, theoretically the damage cap for 2nd level spells was 10d6, but none of them are actually 1d6/level. Sure, Flaming Arrow at 3rd dealt 1d6/level on ranged touch- with a save for half. Neither of these actually justify the change, nor did monster hit points suddenly go up*.

So now you've got this situation where high level spells don't actually deal any more damage per level, and the most powerful damage spell is actually 2nd level. So they change the Orbs to make them compete with the same damage (or possibly vice versa), higher caps, non-magical magic, and rider effects, and suddenly the mailman comes along stacking metamagic and you've got a borked system where damage spells are either "useless" or unstoppable.

The correct solution was to make 5th-6th level area damage spells deal 1.5d6 per level, and use 5th-6th as the standard for single target d6/level no-save (with SR and no rider effects). Then you get Finger of Death/Destruction at 7th, alongside gimmicks like Delayed Blast Fireball and Prismatic Spray, and where you can start adding rider effects to damage (since "death" is already the ultimate rider).

But that's not what they did. Instead they printed Scorching Ray and used it as the new standard for everything, tipping over what was supposed to be the fundamental balance point of the arcanist role, and directly leading to the "lol weapon damage sucks/casters r best damage" problem.

*I've heard people claim the 2:1 Power Attack (a 3.5 change) was actually a fix because damage was too low. So, where's the damage boost for every other weapon style, hm? If anything I'd call it proof that shields are expected, so much that they decided 2-handers needed something to catch up (which was then broken by multiple different authors printing slightly different stacking power attack boosters).

Monks don't have damage problems, they have to-hit and Flurry of Blows being bad for a skirmisher problems.
More fundamentally, they have "unarmored character concept expects to dodge attacks in a game where dodging attacks only scales with armor." Flurry of Blows is good specifically because the penalty reduces with level compared to TWF, and there are ways to move and full attack (heck, 3.0 says high again with 3.0 Haste being there when it was originally written), but the entire dodgy martial artist concept runs straight into the wall of the system's expectation of armor. Still easily fixed if you just give the monk a serious AC boost, 2+1/2 level instead of this +1/5 levels garbage, but it is a massive concept clash.

Indeed, AC only going up with armor is potentially a problem, but I think that's covered in the abstraction of hit points. All hits draw blood, but only hits to -1 are actually serious wounds: the martial classes have high hit points, making them extremely hard to kill with basic weapon attacks (until they run out of hit points)- and armor lets them ignore some of those attacks (but not magic). It works, no scaling Defense bonus required, just comprehension of the hp system. Edit: actually, that could be a cool alternate monk buff, give them tons of hp and daily or encounter or even per round recovery, the exact opposite of AC.


Another problem I'll go in on is Trapfinding. As a basic idea it's actually pretty important, making traps much more powerful as a world-building tool and giving the DM some ability to punish hasty/incautious play. But as a party role that can only be filled by a single class in the PHB, it's actually the worst offender at "oh no the game doesn't support the party I want." And because of this, all further classes written with the ability took the wrong lesson and were written with re-skinned sneak attack (except for the Beguiler, ha). Dungeonscape finally does something about it with Barbarian and Ranger ACFs, but this should have been handled in the 3.5 update.

Similarly, though requiring more effort and reflection: the status removal role, aka You Need a Cleric. The Druid can also remove statuses, but that's only two classes in the PHB. It would have been so simple to take the Paladin's laughable Remove Disease and expand it into removing various conditions as you leveled up, with hit points being covered by far more classes and cheap items.

Ah, there's another flaw: healing potion pricing. The consumable prices are actually quite good most of the time, ensuring that it isn't *too* cheap to just buy buffs, but Cure Wounds is not buffs, and needing to scratch together 750gp to get the proper price for healing is a pain. Sadly, this can't be fixed without either a suspiciously specific exception, or adding a new instantaneous 1-shot consumable with the 15gp multiplier, which in turn makes buying spell-grenades super cheap.

Because the roles aren't a problem- it's the lack of options to fill them. Arcanists can be wildly different just by spell picks and anything can meatshield if they try, but your status remover is always a full divine caster, and your trapfinder is always tied to precision damage. That's where the problem is. Add status removal and trapfinding options to meatshields and things open up a lot.

Which brings us to another flaw- two shall be the casters, and the casters shall be two. All-caster party broken? No-caster party broken? Gee, it's almost like they wrote and playtested the game with standard parties that only used one Cleric-ish and one arcanist. Some will say that the game should work equally well with all casters or no casters, and that I will call bogus- but it would really, really help if the DMG had actually just directly said any party with more or fewer than 1 Clr/Drd and 1 Sor/Wiz would completely mess with all game expectations, no seriously we mean it. Poorly documented code is bad code, and then it's your fault if they don't know why the code isn't working.

[Melcar]

As most people have said, the disparity in the power-level between full casters and mundanes is too high. Not that I mind that spellcasters end up stronger than mundanes, that's kind on fits the fantasy trope somewhat, but I do think that mundanes could have been given more and more interesting options - which might not have eliminated the disparity but might have lessened it.

Fundamentally the greatest problem however, IMO is the lack of design oversight. Pun Pun simply should not be possible full stop! Free wishes, chain gating Solars and the epic magic system probably shouldn't be possible either. Sure a DM can just ban them, and players can opt not to use them, but they probably shouldn't even be in the game! What is essentially means is that full casters have a "press enter to win bottom" which the mundanes have not. And while the DM can apply the same against the party, that just ends up destroying even the most optimized of mundanes...

Also, since most game worlds/ settings do not have Pun Puns running around, its probably a good indicator that its not supposed to be there... It if were supposed to be an integral element of the game, characters like Elminster, the Simbul, Larloch, Zass Tam, the Srinshee, the High Telemond etc. should all have employed such tricks to increase their power exponentially - essentially becoming vastly more powerful than even Karsus were at the height of his power... and why wouldn't they! Yet they haven't! Sure you can chalk that up to roleplaying and the novels they're in, but it makes no sense, since most of these dudes are power-hungry maniacs.

So what we have are a few broken (as in way too good) elements, combined with mundanes who generally suck, even at their own game. This means that there will be a huge gap between the party's full casters and mundanes to the point where the fun of the game breaks down.

IMO, it essentially boils down to poor designing or too many designers, who didn't communicate, which really amount to the same thing; namely options for full casters that essentially makes you a god at will! Even an army of 10.000 highly optimized level 20/20 monk/ fighter gestalts wouldn't be able to make a dent in even just a low optimized wizard employing any of the above tricks. Trick readily available at level 17.

[Kurald Galain]

The only typed bonus that stacks is dodge? I dunno
No, in fact.

And the point you're missing is that I say there should be fewer bonus types and equipment slots, not that there should be none.

[Zanos]

No, it is suboptimal in 3.5 but an entirely valid strategy in PF. It's kind of funny how, after a decade, some people still haven't noticed that their issues have been improved and/or fixed.
Well, it's always depended on your party composition, optimization, and level. If you've got guys swinging longswords for 1d8+3 damage, then spending a standard action and a first level slot to heal 1d8+1-5 damage isn't that awful. And of course it gets better with supplemental material in 3.5. Sure, cure light wounds might not be great, but wrathful healing is extremely powerful, mastery of day and night massively enhances the cure line, heal is full restoration of hit points for nearly any character, etc.


Which is why I like to note that Blindsight was not originally a spell on anyone's lists or accessible to PCs in any way at all short of Shapechange- it's a monster ability to keep stealth from being omnipotent that some fool made a spell out of because they thought it looked like See Invisibility, and welp there goes the neighborhood. Similarly the Darkstalker feat is an instant ban in my book.
I still think it's a problem for there to be monster abilities that completely disable skills with no check, especially when the game makes skill monkey a discrete niche. Couldn't you simply grant the monster a large bonus to spot or listen? I feel like a really dedicated sneak should still be able to sneak past a sleeping dragon and nab something from his hoard; blindsight makes that mechanically impossible outside of darkstalker.

[Aotrs Commander]

Well, this is *exactly* the kind of bad attitude that I think 3e (and other tight balance / optimization games) are responsible for. It may be *optimal* to defeat the scenario with 10 Protoss Carriers, or 10 Atlas mechs, or 5 moxes and a Time Walk, but that doesn't make 100 Hydralisks, or 10 King Crabs, or Atraxa poison counters *bad*.

I'm afriad to diappoint you, then, that my "bad attitude" existed since before I was ever a roleplayer, and certainly long before 3.0 existed.

I just won't "settle." Period. I don't like "making the best of a bad job," period. I - and you can accuse me of being a perfectionist and a control-freak and I won't disagree 1 - want to not have a bad job in the first place. I want to do it right. If you make me make the the best of a bad job, I'm simply not going to enjoy it very much, not matter what you do, because it's inherently not something I like doing, never have, never will. I'll tolerate it over short period, but you're never going to get my A game.

That crap happens enough in non-entertainment stuff that I have to deal with, I'm certainly not going to take it from my entertainment media - which is why I flat-refuse to play anything with ironman.

I'll MAYBE "settle" if its a game after the first 50 or so reloads, but I'll by that point be absolutely fuming.

And the older I get, the less inclined I am to want to spend time on anything that's merely "okay" or worse and certainly not to spend effort on it.



(Yes, it's a good job I'm not into relationships and stuff, innit? For who could possibly live up to that standard?)



I'm sorry, but I'm just not intersted in random number generation telling me what I can or cannot do, outside of task resolution, where it should stay. I'll tolerate it when the rest of the crew want to play Dungeon Crawl Classics as it means I'm not DMing for a bit (toss-up whether it's better than the Western game I also played because evryone else wanted to; which, while allowed me more control I also was so far outside of my remit I was totally lost anyway; at least I can grok DCC), but its not something I'm going to invest significant effort into. (For DCC, where we generated there and then, I literally recycled one of my characters, switched her name backwards and said she was a cheap-knock-off version and played it almost as a parody of the aforementioned character. Ain't gonna spend any more effort than that on a character in a game where you're expected to all die horribly.)


Yes, there are objectively really bad things (urban mechs, muck dwellers, and 4e :smalltongue:), but "not the bleeding edge best" is not the same as "horrifically bad". After all, people have had fun playing in systems other than 2e D&D, playing with players who aren't me. I rest my case. :smallwink:

So? You can have fun playing (1st edition) Warhammer FRPG, that doesn't make it a mechanically good system. And I will have MORE fun playing something that IS a mechanically good system (often dramatically more).

(You could randomise everything about your character in WFRP, too, right down to your name and maybe even background. It was boring after the first time.)

I had fun playing Full Thrust. I had fun playing Stargrunt II. And I simply have had more fun playing Accelerate & Attack and Maneouvre Group and I have never since wanted to go back to the aforementioned.




Well, the problem is, D&D doesn't have a "Fire Wizard" - or, rather, most every edition actually does, but that's rarely the "guy who failed to learn any Fire spells".

Trying to make a vanilla Wizard something that it's not is fighting against the system. Don't do that?

One of my current characters is a Naruto-style ninja who is mechanically a cleric/monk. Just having had all the names of the spells changed and the fluff altered around the raw spell mechanics. For the sheer hell of it.

The big advantage of 3.x is I CAN make a fire-wizard if I want to (ESPECIALLY if you play Pathfinder, there's literally elemental specialisations instead of schools2. I can literally just pick all fire-spells (there's enough of them to do that now) - with some utility depending on how much of a focus on the Burning People I wanted, or could re-flavour to be fire-themed.

I would posit that if the system has to be fought to make a basic idea like "The Fire One" (see any five-band with with elemental themes, for example, Taranee out of W.i.t.c.h or a Firebender), THAT is a fundemental flaw in the system.

(Hell, in 3.5 and/or PF, there's numerous ways of achieveing that concept other than using Wizard the character class (sorcerer, psion, slightly modified warlock, possibly dragonfire adept (I'm not familiar with the class myself), kinetcist in PF if you wanted to be really bad at it...))

The entire point of 3.x is it allows you the freedom to actually mechanically realise concepts properly.




And how, in your mind, (other than Roy) would you picture the concept of "failed fire mage" manifesting in 3e (or 3.Aotrs)?

Without actually coming up with a build, exactly the same way I approached Jarmin Kuld the GLA terrorist in Cyberpunk, who claimed he was a demolitions expert, but was in fact a complete moron - optimise in the other direction. Jarmin, far from being the competant demolitions expert he said he was actually just really really good at fast-talking (he wasn't self-aware enough consciously know it) and incredibly lucky (in terms of stats) - which is how he managed to convince a number of people of apparently mostly working brains that Command & Conquer Generals was Real History (which he was stupid enough to genuniely believe) and that he was re-starting the GLA. And the party that he Was Good At Demolitions. (He had - deliberately - the bare minimum of competance.)

(No, I cannot show Jarmin's Hilarious Parody Background, it's far too politically incorrect for the forums...)

So, yes, actually; Roy, basically.

The same way I wouldn't make Rincewind as a wizard that couldn't cast spells (that one time could be assumed to be plot/DM fiat or written as a hook into his background) and make a character that was a specialist in Running Away.




Where do you draw the line?

There's "your character"… which, OK, I can completely understand (even if I don't… hmmm… exclusively agree) wanting to have full control over, with no influence from RNG.

But "your character's items" - your loot - aren't "your character", any more than the BBEG you fought to get them. "Your items" are part of your history, not really something inherently under player control.

I'm all for "Player Agency", but that doesn't mean I want to roleplay the BBEG and get him to surrender to me, or roleplay the Emperor and get him to hand over his fleet of Star Destroyers.

So, personally, I draw the line of what I believe players should have control over to exclude things like "loot" and "items" outside what is available to be purchased - which I believe should generally exclude D&D magical items. Loot should be different and useful and magical, not samey and optimized and a commodity.

As I did note, the magical item Christmas tree required for function IS one of 3.x's fundemental problems. If they hadn't made it necessary, allowing the PCs to have some control (via money and enchantment) might not have been also as necessary.

And I DO place some limitations on what the PCs can buy (sometimes they have to order it in), but total freedom is not something I will grant.


(And what taught me not to do that was AD&D modules (esp. Die Vecna Die! and Night Below), where it handed out magical items like they were going out of fashion and in the former, the first instance where the PCs could stop to do anything with them was in SIGIL, where they sold something on the order of 90k or maybe 190k or something stupid EACH (in a party of SIX).

They had enough money EVEN AFTER that, that next adventure they were happy to blow 25K on ressing an NPC guide without a second thought, because it pocket change.

So, any defence of specifically AD&D's method of handing out treasure as better, I'm afraid, would not really getting any ground with me...)



And on my Dreemaenhyll campaign, where the hard numbers are, as mentioned, locked into an class/monster type-independant level progresson, you basically CAN'T buy magic items (maybe disposables, if youre lucky). (Wizards/Archivsts etc also don't have spellbooks/prayerbooks and everyone who is a caster is a spontaneous caster too.) So that magic items can be reserved for things that can Do Stuff. (It also makes DR/Magic actually mean something.)




But "which spells / techniques the character is able to master"? That's a much more interesting discussion.

Naruto struggled most with creating clones; that's no small part of why he masters Shadow Clone Jutsu.

Which was a deliberate decision on the part of the author.

And Naruto is a perfect example of Jarmin-ing-it-up. Look how the poor orphan boy with a demon inside him who a bit clueless is obviously an underdog despite actually being the most OP person on the continent because he actually DOES get massive advantages (from both of his parents AND being the reincarnation of Ninja God's very nearly-as-OP-offpsring) and is not, like Rock Lee, ACTUALLY an underdog. He just has PR to make it LOOK like he's the underdog, when in fact, Int is just the 8 dump stat on his array of pretty much otherwise 16-18s, if not higher.

Kishimoto didn't roll dice and go "oh, damn, I wanted to make this be about a wizard guy, but Naruto's Int is only 8, despite all his other stats... Okay, I better completely change my entire plan and make this about magic ninja instead." That was a measured decision on his part.




I see this as an opportunity for characterization, rather than a problem.

And I see it as a problem and a barrier. I don't NEED random numbers to spark my creativity, I'm perfectly capable of sparking my own creativity and you'll actively get better results out of me if you don't make me roll randomly for stuff outside of actual task resolution. The RNG exists to tell me whether I succeed or fail, not what I can or cannot do.




That's not… our? At least *my* issue. It's not about how long it takes making who you *are*, it's that you have to carefully plan out *who you will be*, else you fail at character creation.

Despite my disappointment at Starfinder, when we started a party for that game, I read the entire rules book, more or less and then spent several happy hours planning out exactly what I wanted to do with what my character was going to be (and in this instance, down to what implants he wanted - normally, gear is not something I consider part of a "build," but I wanted Skrath to be Good At Running, because It Sounded Like A Laugh being able to run, like 85/115 foot around at the expected 13-ish-if-I-was-lucky level we'd nominally end at. And also, I literally couldn't remember the last time I got to make a proper character in the last umpteen years and i'm pretty sure it was that aforemention Naruto guy and hes level 16 now, so I was damn sure I was going to make the most of it.)

You would NEVER have got that kind of investment out of me for AD&D or Warhammer. That's my point. You want my full investment, you HAVE to give me lots of Maths and/or Decisions, basically.



"But you didn't mention anything about his character, Bleakbane!" No, no I did not, because I'm not that sort of person (feel free to say I'm Not Good At Roleplaying, and maybe out group isn't, at least not by the compairson so, say, the voice actors who do roleplay streams who are FAR better at it than I'll ever be, but who aren't as good as the mechanicals and the maths. Different strengths for different people.) I have a rough idea of a character's personality - sometimes, especially if a background is required - but that's ALL you'll ever get out of me in that regard (characters are ALWAYS mechanical concept or rough pastiche first, personality second, that's how my brain works) when we start and go from there.

(But for the record, Skrath is a Golarion goblin who was raised by Plot-Important-NPC-We-Had-A-Connection-To who tried to make him Not Be Evil, and is willing to try and listen (he's frighteningly intelligent), but he just fundementally doesn't really "get" it. And that's basically all the thought that went into his character; a workable concept. Everything else pans out in play.)



1The self-confessed Lawful Evil, megalomanical, omnicidal magical space Lich abomination has control issues?

D'ya THINK?!

2Granted, 3.Aotrs specifically cudgelled that option on the head and dragged it away to be given to the Wu Jen and Shugenja, because the wizard had enough toys and they didn't.

[NichG]

Learning to what spells to prepare (or how to prepare to know what spells to prepare) is part of the game. The player is expected to learn how to be a good adventurer- because if you ask me, everyone always having the answer is super boring. Class choices going into the campaign are a bigger problem, except the DM is supposed to okay those characters, and would know if one of them is going to be useless. Even so, someone starting as a rogue and finding undead for miles and miles could just stop being a rogue- take fighter or ranger levels, only sprinkling in another rogue level when necessary to catch up on disable device. The multiclassing system allows characters to change their direction mid-campaign.

Incorporeal undead are always a funny sticking point to me, because they're something the game actually does arm every party against. At least, the standard party, which is presumed to be good or neutral and has a Cleric. Who can Turn Undead, or use spontaneous Cure Wounds, which as pointed out in another thread ignore incorporeality.

The system-level solution for flying monsters is to bring a bow. There isn't one in the PHB for rogues vs no sneak attack, but that's because rogues aren't actually supposed to depend on sneak attack. Not even every round, let alone every attack. They can swing or shoot just like everyone else, and whether people admit it or not that damage is not zero.

If anything, the real point of sneak attack is in punishing monsters that "just walk past" or grapple or swallow whole. Standard undead don't actually have the biggest hit points due to their lack of con bonus (this could even be a secondary reason for why SA doesn't work on them), you shouldn't need huge damage bonuses to fight them. And you can, ya know, just buy (or quest for) a bane weapon if that's a problem. Or remind the DM that the DMG explicitly gives them the job of ensuring the party has sufficient magic items to meet their challenges, and your rogue is suspiciously unable to meet the challenges the DM is fielding with their current magic items.

When people expect sneak attack to work on everything, it means they expect way more damage on every attack than the monsters are actually written for- because they'll want that damage against every monster, and also on every attack, on multiple attacks, in addition to as much other damage as they can buy, and there's a high chance they're comparing themselves to 2:1 power attack with mysteriously un-impacted accuracy. Myself, I put those ACFs on the ban list for missing the point.


Well as I said, there are spot fixes to the individual issues, but the real flaw or problem from my point of view is the mindset that 'the character build/preparatory stages is (the major) part of the game'.

The ideal sort of balance from my point of view would be that if you have a situation in a campaign and someone brings in the most optimized build they could come up with, or someone brings in a baseline reference build, then there is some achievable quantity of player skill that could make up that difference for the full dynamic range of character build level optimization options available in the system. I don't necessarily mean that the one character could fight and kill the other, but that basically a sufficiently savvy player can make up for almost any level of mechanical gap in a valid character which they're handed to play.

That doesn't mean that character build shouldn't matter, but rather it means that character build shouldn't dominate. A good build can make the skill level required lower, or can make a character more compatible with ideas and styles of play a player is comfortable with. The reasoning behind this is that if there are gaps which can't be crossed, it emphasizes a player's activities away from the table rather than at the table. Which makes the time spent at the table become more passive. If you could hand over your build to someone else and end up with the same result, I think that's a problem.

Compare with something like chess, where its entirely about the player's choices during play and there are no out-of-play choices that matter aside from who is playing black. So games absolutely don't have to be this way - there's a spectrum of options in the system design, and 3e sits on one extreme of that spectrum.

[Fizban]

I still think it's a problem for there to be monster abilities that completely disable skills with no check, especially when the game makes skill monkey a discrete niche. Couldn't you simply grant the monster a large bonus to spot or listen? I feel like a really dedicated sneak should still be able to sneak past a sleeping dragon and nab something from his hoard; blindsight makes that mechanically impossible outside of darkstalker.
Nah- there's gotta be limits, being undetectable is one of the true disruptive abilities, and the DM is supposed to have the final limit, not the players. Having to deal with limits is a fundamental part of making things interesting. An arbitrarily large spot or listen bonus just means complaining that the bonus is too high and expectations that they should be able to beat it. Better to be honest and say no, this monster can't be snuck past without magic (or just can't be snuck past), than to present false hope you intend to never actually fulfill. If you want to let people sneak past sleeping dragons, then say that blindX doesn't function if they're unconscious- does it even function when unconscious? Probably depends on the fluff, but an easy ruling. Same as getting rid of non-magical magic, or maintaining that no you can't charm a zombie with Diplomacy, or a Charm spell, etc.

Of course I also don't recognize "skill monkey" or "stealth master" as a niche that needs protecting from monster abilities, since nothing in the game actually requires stealth- only Search, Disable Device, and maybe Open Lock. For actual games where those are made a thing, sure, but it's not inherent in the system (and I've yet to see anyone present a skill package that makes all PCs fairly required participants the same way they're expected to in combat).


Well as I said, there are spot fixes to the individual issues, but the real flaw or problem from my point of view is the mindset that 'the character build/preparatory stages is (the major) part of the game'.
Which I also disagree with. It is a major part of the game for some people, but not actually expected or required- as long as you don't actively try to make your character bad. Preparing spells is part of play, as are good tactical choices. Characters can be built for those who lack that skill, or the game can be run entirely with DM-pre-made characters, or indeed the heavy builders can be directed to ease up to match the rest.

While some people think planning a full build is necessary, it is entirely possible that this will set them up for failure- the rogue who refuses to stop taking rogue when it becomes clear that undead are the order of the campaign. I find full 20 builds kinda superfluous- you've already made all the choices, why bother playing a character that will apparently refuse to be affected by the campaign? And once you're actually in a campaign, picking stuff for your next level up really, really shouldn't be that hard- you just participated in 13.3 fights over multiple sessions, if you can pay enough attention to fight them, you can pay enough attention to pick something that sounds good.

The ideal sort of balance from my point of view would be that if you have a situation in a campaign and someone brings in the most optimized build they could come up with, or someone brings in a baseline reference build, then there is some achievable quantity of player skill that could make up that difference for the full dynamic range of character build level optimization options available in the system. I don't necessarily mean that the one character could fight and kill the other, but that basically a sufficiently savvy player can make up for almost any level of mechanical gap in a valid character which they're handed to play.
A tall order. Though funny thing is that this is actually true at the proper baseline no-op level, the "zero-point" optimization of actually knowing how to use positioning and the basic combat rules is what separates a meatshield from a useless fighter, while baseline spells used imperfectly demand a competent fighter as backup.

That doesn't mean that character build shouldn't matter, but rather it means that character build shouldn't dominate. A good build can make the skill level required lower, or can make a character more compatible with ideas and styles of play a player is comfortable with. The reasoning behind this is that if there are gaps which can't be crossed, it emphasizes a player's activities away from the table rather than at the table. Which makes the time spent at the table become more passive. If you could hand over your build to someone else and end up with the same result, I think that's a problem.
The problem is that the player with pre-game skill will almost always have more in-game skill to go with it, and some players do in fact have a limit on their effective in-game skill. In that case you either have the other players ordering them around, or a character so simple it may be obviously insulting. In order for this to actually be true, you need a very narrow range of build efficacy.


Compare with something like chess, where its entirely about the player's choices during play and there are no out-of-play choices that matter aside from who is playing black. So games absolutely don't have to be this way - there's a spectrum of options in the system design, and 3e sits on one extreme of that spectrum.
I would argue that's completely backwards. The out-of-play choices for chess are learning how to actually win at chess, and it's far more important than picking the perfect feat or spell for a character. DnD is meant to function at essentially any non-negative-op if you act carefully. But chess is played out across so many dissociated moves that you can't just sit down and play and expect to do well based on reactions and knowledge of basic rules. Chess has more required pre-game investment than DnD by far.


Unrelated, I remember another fundamental flaw:

Non-standardized ability scores as a thing in just any way. Rolled scores do not work (nor do rolled hit points). You cannot expect the game to be consistent when the very base power level of the characters isn't even constant, and people make up even more powerful rolling methods or otherwise just let the players have obviously above average stats. Point buy sounds like a good idea, but again they just immediately go for extra powerful stats and some characters can super specialize and maybe never pay the price while others can't.

You want fair and balanced? Elite array. That's how the playtest characters did it, that's how every published NPC does it, and it's worked out pretty well so far.

[NichG]

A tall order. Though funny thing is that this is actually true at the proper baseline no-op level, the "zero-point" optimization of actually knowing how to use positioning and the basic combat rules is what separates a meatshield from a useless fighter, while baseline spells used imperfectly demand a competent fighter as backup.

The problem is that the player with pre-game skill will almost always have more in-game skill to go with it, and some players do in fact have a limit on their effective in-game skill. In that case you either have the other players ordering them around, or a character so simple it may be obviously insulting. In order for this to actually be true, you need a very narrow range of build efficacy.


This bit at least is fine by me. The sort of situation I'm imagining is something like being able to be good enough at the game that you can voluntarily handicap yourself by choosing to play a full-level Commoner, and have that be viable. I'm not looking for parity between players, I'm looking for the game to focus on at-table decisions rather than away-from-table decisions. Take the best player you know and give them a Commoner, and I want them to be able to keep up with an average player playing a high-op build. If that good player wants to play high-op and average players are playing average builds and there's a gap between their performance at the table I'm actually okay with that at least at the level of what I'd like to ask from a system.

A concrete example of this is that I ran the 1ed Tomb of Horrors for a pool of 15 Lv1 characters as a gimmicky Halloween game once. Even in 1ed, it's supposed to be for high-level characters, but in practice something like 90% of the Tomb is about making correct decisions about what to do (there are a few monsters, but the only ones that were essential to defeat happened to be in areas where they could effectively be kited or taken out from outside of their range, at least with how far we got). By the end of the night, the group had gotten about halfway through the Tomb with 4 or so deaths if I remember correctly.



I would argue that's completely backwards. The out-of-play choices for chess are learning how to actually win at chess, and it's far more important than picking the perfect feat or spell for a character. DnD is meant to function at essentially any non-negative-op if you act carefully. But chess is played out across so many dissociated moves that you can't just sit down and play and expect to do well based on reactions and knowledge of basic rules. Chess has more required pre-game investment than DnD by far.


Again, I'm not worried about pre-game investment, I'm worried about too many of the important decisions being made away from the table. Choices should need to happen at the table, in the heat of the moment. But if people want to prepare in order to make those choices better by thinking about things or playing out scenarios for themselves, I have no problem with that.

What I don't want is for the game to be over before the session even begins, because you could look at the builds people brought and work out what's going to happen without actually running through the scenario. Generally when I DM, if a combat looks like that I don't bother running it, I just say 'you encounter some opposition, but they're not a credible threat so you mop them up however you'd like and move on'.

[Brenden1k]

Magic is too good, mundane is bad, and the major reason is versatility. Spellcasters are able to do too many things, and mundanes aren't able to do enough things.

Action economy is also a problem, especially when it comes to a single powerful 'boss' encounter. Especially when it comes to characters gaining more actions than they would normally have, which again is due to spells.

Magic items are mandatory for mundanes and even partial casters to be able to keep up from the mid levels and beyond. Full casters don't necessarily need items, but it wouldn't be fair to deprive them of the same gear value as the mundanes get. Every character ends up looking like a Christmas tree even before the higher levels.


I am not sure the issue is so much magic is to good as martial is way to weak and boring in comparison, like if you made the default fighter, a fighter gestalt with warblade, the balence would be much better as both spellcasters and martial classes get lot of cool special moves to pick and choose from.

I would think it be a good idea to make it so martial classes are mythical heroes/anime heroes, where they are blatently supposed to be beyond what lesser people think is human limits, maybe they gain plus one to con,str,Rex each level, because whether it ki, divine bloodline or being simply being that in world of myth and magic, human limits are more flexible, they should be able to go past real life peak human.

Just look at stuff Beowulf does killing monsters with his bear hands, swimming to the bottom of the lake or stuff Hercules does or Samson, that should be the goal for the martial class, level 20 should be able to pick up the sky and overpower monsters, to some extent.

Paladin would be higher tier if you gave them the strength of Samson (guy is pretty much a paladin in themes, with code based limits, never shave his hair, lawful good stupid, way to trusting of wife and holy martial proweness) that be a plus 3 strength per level ( I say Samson is stronger than a bear) which would let them keep up with Wizard dps, (splash damage vs never running out of attacks)


One could do what ars magica do and make a player control two characters, one martial sidekick and one magic lord, maybe this could be balanced by a tier system where both sidekick and team mate has to have there tiers add up to least a six, so wizard and fighter/ninja , sorcerer and barb/rouge and bard and warblade are all valid options kind of equal in power?

[Elves]

You want fair and balanced? Elite array. That's how the playtest characters did it, that's how every published NPC does it, and it's worked out pretty well so far.

Set array doesn't work unless you have highly standardized ability requirements between all classes and builds, which definitely isn't the case in 3e. And it ends up making MAD even worse than it is already. Point buy is fine.

Elite array is moderately functional if you boost the 15 to a 16, like they did in 4e. Doesn't work otherwise.

On the point of rolling stats, definitely true that it should be a variant rather than default. Just goes to show that D&D wasn't originally intended to be a traditionally "balanced" game but more of a simulator.

[D+1]

There's a reason E6 is so popular. It's my honest opinion that, considered only for what it does and without the flaws of the rest of the system, D&D 3e capped at somewhere in the 4-8 range is the best the game has ever been.
I stepped in just to say that 3E's biggest flaw is that it isn't E6.

The issue of power spiral has always existed in D&D. It wasn't a secret. It was always a fundamental flaw and a prominent complaint, certainly through AD&D 1&2. If 3E then has a flaw it is that it abjectly failed to fix that fundamental flaw despite tearing down and rebuilding the entire game from the ground up. The root of that flaw is MAGIC, or more accurately SPELLS.

It has always needed to be a game that covers ONE power tier. If there was ever any truth to Dancey's division of D&D into four quartiles of gritty, heroic, wuxia, and superheroes (and there most certainly is, because again this is a problematic thing that has always existed in D&D) then D&D should not be one game that inexorably expands from gritty to superheroes, but to PICK ONE TIER and then stay within it. D&D games that dramatically exceed their chosen tier should instead move a different set of rules. Those rules could still be D&D, but would be designed to exhibit gameplay at THAT tier. Why pick one? Because survey after survey after survey reveals (and has ever since D&D surveys finally became practical with the internet) what levels are the most popular and the most fun. It isn't the dead bottom of gritty, but even that's more popular than wuxia and superheroes. And it still applies (perhaps even MORE so) to 5E:
https://www.enworld.org/threads/90-of-d-d-games-stop-by-level-10-wizards-more-popular-at-higher-levels.666097/
For all the research WotC supposedly did in preparation for creating 3E that is an aspect of the game that they missed or critically misinterpreted. High level play gets a wildly disproportionate amount of attention on forums but that's only 10% of where anybody's campaigns take place. 90% are the gritty and heroic tiers. Go back and dig up similar surveys during the 3E era. Again and again the preferred levels peaks at about 7th...

If there's a second flaw worth discussing, for ME at least it would be that the inmates were given the run of the asylum. Once it was realized that they could sell more supplements to PLAYERS than they could to DM's 3E was done for. Any chance at maintaining (or establishing) some control over that power spiral was lost. It's a strong DM who actually tells players, "We're only using these SELECT supplements and NOTHING more," or even, "Core books ONLY," when the overwhelming pressure is to let players have ANYTHING they want. And that actually started in earnest with Prestige Classes. Read the 3E DMG and it's clear that they were intended as DM tools to customize a campaign setting, not as players tools for optimization. But they sure as heck aren't thought of that way NOW, are they?

[Elves]

It's been pointed out many times that the Core books include more "power spiral" problems than any supplements that followed. IMO, like I said earlier, the phenomenon you're talking about really stems from the open multiclassing system, which gives 3e the advantages it has but also makes the game kind of a mess.

The idea of players having free access to content rather than it being strictly adjudicated by the GM is what brought the game into the modern age. Dictator-DM is a really bad way to play a cooperative game. That freedom of player option is 3e's main virtue compared to other editions.

[Ignimortis]

I stepped in just to say that 3E's biggest flaw is that it isn't E6.

The issue of power spiral has always existed in D&D. It wasn't a secret. It was always a fundamental flaw and a prominent complaint, certainly through AD&D 1&2. If 3E then has a flaw it is that it abjectly failed to fix that fundamental flaw despite tearing down and rebuilding the entire game from the ground up. The root of that flaw is MAGIC, or more accurately SPELLS.

It has always needed to be a game that covers ONE power tier. If there was ever any truth to Dancey's division of D&D into four quartiles of gritty, heroic, wuxia, and superheroes (and there most certainly is, because again this is a problematic thing that has always existed in D&D) then D&D should not be one game that inexorably expands from gritty to superheroes, but to PICK ONE TIER and then stay within it. D&D games that dramatically exceed their chosen tier should instead move a different set of rules. Those rules could still be D&D, but would be designed to exhibit gameplay at THAT tier. Why pick one? Because survey after survey after survey reveals (and has ever since D&D surveys finally became practical with the internet) what levels are the most popular and the most fun. It isn't the dead bottom of gritty, but even that's more popular than wuxia and superheroes. And it still applies (perhaps even MORE so) to 5E:
https://www.enworld.org/threads/90-of-d-d-games-stop-by-level-10-wizards-more-popular-at-higher-levels.666097/
For all the research WotC supposedly did in preparation for creating 3E that is an aspect of the game that they missed or critically misinterpreted. High level play gets a wildly disproportionate amount of attention on forums but that's only 10% of where anybody's campaigns take place. 90% are the gritty and heroic tiers. Go back and dig up similar surveys during the 3E era. Again and again the preferred levels peaks at about 7th...


I have quit campaigns over announcements that they were switching to E6. I don't think I'd actually stay with any edition of D&D if 3.5's power curve wasn't a thing - if I'd wanted one certain power level, self-contained in one set of rules, I would probably go and play a different game. D&D, to me, was always about outgrowing your environment every so often, and moving onto something bigger.

Actually, 5e is for the most part E6 stretched over 20 levels and with bigger numbers, but it's still the same philosophy - keep the players and the enemies somewhat grounded and limited, and requiring far less effort from both players and the DM to run properly. And yes, that works out for popularity - but that doesn't make 5e an objectively better system than 3.5.

[Brenden1k]

I stepped in just to say that 3E's biggest flaw is that it isn't E6.

The issue of power spiral has always existed in D&D. It wasn't a secret. It was always a fundamental flaw and a prominent complaint, certainly through AD&D 1&2. If 3E then has a flaw it is that it abjectly failed to fix that fundamental flaw despite tearing down and rebuilding the entire game from the ground up. The root of that flaw is MAGIC, or more accurately SPELLS.
If there's a second flaw worth discussing, for ME at least it would be that the inmates were given the run of the asylum. Once it was realized that they could sell more supplements to PLAYERS than they could to DM's 3E was done for. Any chance at maintaining (or establishing) some control over that power spiral was lost. It's a strong DM who actually tells players, "We're only using these SELECT supplements and NOTHING more," or even, "Core books ONLY," when the overwhelming pressure is to let players have ANYTHING they want. And that actually started in earnest with Prestige Classes. Read the 3E DMG and it's clear that they were intended as DM tools to customize a campaign setting, not as players tools for optimization. But they sure as heck aren't thought of that way NOW, are they?




To me d&d seems built around that power spiral in a way and maybe not the most sensible way, most rpg hand out xp that can be used raise traits, D&d hands out level ups with the implied level up characters are better in every way, it also i get the impression maybe takes a lot from myth, mythical heroes are differently level 20, King Arthur can slay a hundred men in a charge and some of the stories really make the knights of round table sound like anime heroes. Cu chulainn can fight armies and throw a spear across Ireland, Beowulf can slay monsters

The whole concept of wandering hero that adventurers are fits high level play, these characters are one men armies by there nature, issue is martial seem half hearted by embracing this, having enough bab, grappling feats to wrestle with a dragon but that does not mean one has a strength higher than 10 or can move faster than 30 feet, meanwhile poorly build spell casters can do 1d6 damage per level easy with aoe while you got to build carefully to do that with a martial class, and use stuff that not obvious to a new Comer comer like Two handed power attack or variots feats. The whole power attack kind of looks like it should be a freebie with how it is needed to get some decent dps and the whole full round


Rouge had the right idea making sneak attack do dice based on level but it only does as much damage as a typical wizard spell who target succeeded on save, not work on many targets and circumstances.

Monk also almost had a martial class that fit with the spellcaster, if you took all the abilities of monk, added them to a martial combat and made them work with melee weapons. Just picture a level 29,barb duel wielding enchanted weapons that do 4d8 damage a base From monk damage boost before factoring in increases, gets two bonus attacks on max base And gets ac bonus, that actually looks like someone a 20 level wizard considering a valuable ally.

That or add Elements from rouge to all classes, being a skillmonkey with sneak attack could help keep up with the flexibility of magic users.

Issue is WOTC thought monks special features were so powerful they needed limits like only using fists, reduced hit points and bab exist when in reality in the world where martial classes are fighting along spell casters vs superhuman monsters, feature like AC that scales with level, damage that increases with level at reliable rate and more attacks at full BAB need to basic features to keep up quadratic Mages that or mages need to be slow down, if they were 3/4 Or 2/3 casters that would make sense Balence wise, having to be level 7 to use fireball makes so much more sense balence wise, at that point a melee attacker (via power attack rouge sneak attack) could do
17 damage in a turn and therefore fireball would be balenced as trading being able to hit mutiple foes and evade armor for mutiple uses and at level 13 one can. Huh maybe 2/3 is more of a nerf than I thought but 3/4 would good, fireball being able to made to 15d6 damage via empowered at level 13 seems saner than level 10


Short story, mage are well designed for epic myth power levels, martial classes really need to have better scaling per level, stuff like str/con/dex, damage bonuses so level past seven feel like guts from brzerk (He is a very good example of what a level 7 plus fighter would look like someone who is the stuff of legend, who is currently well matched versus 100 solder but will reach the level of slaying hundred superhuman monsters
Look up the guts vs hundred men from the brezerk movie (not enough posts to let me post links properly (note might want to skip 4:30 to 530 there is sexual assault but victim escapes but otherwise good example of what a martial one man army looks like who not invincible and is still threatened by sheer number but got a chance. ) and levels past 13 (where mages get limited wish ) Should be punching to death dragons like your Beowulf even if your are not a monk. Which is possible if one grabs power attack but does not feel embraced the way a level 14 wizard could handle it or a Druid.

[NigelWalmsley]

Dips aren't open multiclassing, but open multiclassing enables dipping, a bit like how falling off a cliff isn't the same as being able to walk around but being able to walk around enables falling off cliffs.

You don't need Open Multiclassing to make a character who is "a little bit" a Rogue or a Wizard or a Bard. You can just have feats that give you a marginal amount of Rogue-ing or Wizard-ing or Bard-ing. I have never seen someone use Open Multiclassing to do something that could not be done at least as well by another system and end up happy with the result.


I am not sure the issue is so much magic is to good as martial is way to weak and boring in comparison, like if you made the default fighter, a fighter gestalt with warblade, the balence would be much better as both spellcasters and martial classes get lot of cool special moves to pick and choose from.

I want to emphasize this. The problem is not that casters are too good (with a few small exceptions, e.g. Polymorph, Planar Binding). It's that martial characters aren't good enough. If I want to build Doctor Strange, I can do that with a Wizard. If I want to build Thor, I can't do that with a Barbarian. That's an issue.


One could do what ars magica do and make a player control two characters, one martial sidekick and one magic lord, maybe this could be balanced by a tier system where both sidekick and team mate has to have there tiers add up to least a six, so wizard and fighter/ninja , sorcerer and barb/rouge and bard and warblade are all valid options kind of equal in power?

I would be very wary of trying to apply the tier system directly to anything other than the context for which it was intended. Like any tool, it is built for a particular use, and degrades in utility the farther it is removed from that use.

That said, I do wish more TTRPGs would explore the idea of more than one character per player. Not even necessarily Ars Magica-style Troupe Play. You could do something like XCOM where you control multiple simple characters instead of a single complex one (incidentally, I think something like this would make 4e a lot more palatable).


Set array doesn't work unless you have highly standardized ability requirements between all classes and builds, which definitely isn't the case in 3e. And it ends up making MAD even worse than it is already. Point buy is fine.

Arguing with Fizban that there is anything wrong with the base rules of D&D is wasted effort. He unshakably believes that all problems with D&D are a result of deviating from the vision of the designers, including those that arise as a result of things created by the designers.


I have quit campaigns over announcements that they were switching to E6. I don't think I'd actually stay with any edition of D&D if 3.5's power curve wasn't a thing - if I'd wanted one certain power level, self-contained in one set of rules, I would probably go and play a different game. D&D, to me, was always about outgrowing your environment every so often, and moving onto something bigger.

Basically agreed. The advantage of D&D is that it can do a range of things. And while that includes E6 (or E4 or E10 or whatever level cap gets you where you want to go), that also includes progression-based games, which is also desirable. Sometimes you're interested in a game where people start at a particular power level and largely stay there (e.g. most superhero stories, LotR). Other times you want to do zero-to-hero advancement (e.g. Harry Potter, A Practical Guide to Evil). Both kinds of things are legitimate, and have support in the source material. D&D is fundamentally a kitchen sink fantasy game, so there's no need for it to exclude either kind of story.

[Quertus]

I really disagree here, being stuck at level 1 for that long would be horrible, the faster we get out of level 1 the better, most people don't have their fun class features yet, everyone dies to a single lucky hit because noone has enough hp, not even the barbarian with his d12. Unless you're actually new to the game you don't really need to learn all your abilities anew anyway. Low levels are just there because most stories are about rising up from humble beginnings. Personally I'm fond of starting everyone off at level 3.


You forget that in 2E, wizards explicitly get experience for each spell cast, and everyone explicitly gets XP for roleplaying and having good ideas. None of that is the case in 3E. Nobody has ever leveled up by killing 500 goblins :smalltongue:


First you weren't stuck at 1st that long. Gp to xp meant that two random potions and a chest of silver pieces could a thief you into level 2 pretty quick, and a wizard well over half way to level 2. Of course then you need a money sink because pcs have piles of money, so ad&d had training costs, hirelings, and eventually building a domain. And starting at level 3 was a thing, an official thing too. Of course the real point wasn't 1st level, it was not going from chump to demi-god in 4 months of adventuring and what having that sort of thing would logically do to a setting.

Telok has the right of it. I thought it would be easier to grasp in terms of players not knowing how to run their characters, but the setting coherence is trickier, too.

Personally, I'm a fan of everyone getting their fun class features at level 1.


Again I really disagree, you shouldn't be dependant on random chance or a generous GM to have a functional class. A wizard who doesn't get his spells at level up is a waste of space, spell component pouches are fine, you shouldn't be expected to track random jokes like bat guano. This goes hand in hand with your point on wealth by level, the less RNG involved the better. Ideally the only RNG is your saves and attack rolls.


A wizard who doesn't automatically get all the best spells isn't automatically worthless, just like a fighter without the perfect magic items isn't worthless. It was a way to keep spells powerful and fun while also keeping the casters power level in check. Blindly removing that got us 3.p quadratic wizards, whacking the spell power got us (to me) boring 4e magic that was basically variations on shooting aoe arrows, sometimes with one or two round minor debuffs.


Trap spells (my "camping Wizard") shouldn't be a thing - random spells and random items *should* be fully functional.


Why should casters suck at high level?


They didn't. They just couldn't assume that the opposition would fail saving throws. Without scaling save dcs and with higher level monsters getting better saves you cut down on the 3e/5e thing where a 2nd level spell on a weak save can shut down the boss monster almost all the time. Plus your high level fighters stop being chumps to low end mook casters dropping will save spells on them. It depreciated damage spells and direct save-or-die/suck effects on big solo monsters and major npcs at high levels, mobs of mooks were both still threats and fell to the spells just fine or you could use indirect attack magic.

And I'm with Telok again.

Also, high-level casters either had to use their spells wisely / efficiently, or they had to spam spells repeatedly until one stuck.



They're called druids :smallamused:

Touché.


Both fixed in PF. Like I said earlier, "It's kind of funny how, after a decade, some people still haven't noticed that their issues have been improved and/or fixed."

But… that doesn't matter to 3e :smallconfused:


It depends on what you mean by "fundamental". I would argue that things like class imbalance are not "fundamental" flaws of the system. It would be quite easy to write a set of classes using the 3e rules engine that were balanced (indeed, you can pick many balanced subsets of classes from the ones that do exist). I think for something to be a fundamental flaw, it needs to be either intrinsic to the system or an explicit design goal. With that distinction in mind, there are a few things I can think of that would probably qualify:

Good call. My choices were not so… intelligently informed.


1. Magic Items. Specifically, the decision to move from random magic items to WBL, and math that presumes magic item bonuses. I think this was an interesting experiment at the time, but in hindsight it's a paradigm that just doesn't work as well. Numeric bonuses are less interesting than abilities, and in particular having the numeric bonuses be baked into the expected opposition makes getting items into a Red Queen's Race. Random items make characters and campaigns more memorable.

"Balance expectations" (in terms of WBL and shops) to allow the creation of high-level characters was a nice idea on paper… but not all uses of 49k GP are equivalent, and replacing them both with donjon random treasure would have been better and more fun.



2. Open Multiclassing. This just doesn't work. There is no feasible way to write classes such that Open Multiclassing is balanced, and the proliferation of Theurge PrCs indicates that it wasn't even allowing people to play hybrid characters effectively.

Challenge accepted!

Classes give access to roles. Leveling grows you horizontally; your first level in Fighter gave you "Striker", your second level, you chose "Striker(ranged)". The Wizard took the role "Striker(ranged) at 1st level, then dipped Fighter for "Tank".



3. High-Level Skills. The skill system in 3e actually works pretty well at low levels. The numbers make sense, and you get outputs that work (3e is actually an incredibly solid system at low levels). The problem is that it doesn't scale well. Numbers get too big to be sensible, bonuses diverge (even between people who are nominally specialists in the same thing), and level (ironically) doesn't have a meaningful impact. Frankly, I think the problem is demanding one system for superhuman feats and regular people.

Given that IRL is estimated at "e7", I would expect skills to get "unrealistic". So, what's the problem?



6. Encounter Guidelines. 1v4 just doesn't work well from an action economy perspective, and makes challenge scaling awkward. CR works well enough in general, but the balance point it's aiming for is generally inferior to something like 4e, which assumes most encounters will be even or leave the PCs outnumbered.

… IME, PCs rarely fight 1v4.

Regardless, a) action economy advantage is an advantage; b) I don't see how this makes CR inherently bad design.


There were definitely other issues (and other things you could cluster under those issues), but those are the ones that I would call fundamental errors that come to mind off the top of my head.


3e was playtested more than most (probably all) other editions. There is, particularly in 3.0, a great deal of math that is actually quite elegant.

Examples?


I've always hated how low magic item DCs were. Yay, you got this awesome new +3 magical sword that drains the enemies life when you hit (as an example) and they can negate with... DC 14 Fort save... Lame. Can I swap out the life drain bit for something more useful and consistent?? I've always thought magic item DCs should scale based on the user wielding it or using the item, not locked in from the creator no exceptions. Like DC 10 + 1/2 HD + Cha (give some benefit to that good ol' dump stat Cha; and if that's lower just use the base DC listed in the description). It's more fun when magic items that call for saves are always going to be useful and not relegated to shop fodder.

Preach it!


Incorporeal undead are always a funny sticking point to me, because they're something the game actually does arm every party against. At least, the standard party, which is presumed to be good or neutral and has a Cleric. Who can Turn Undead, or use spontaneous Cure Wounds, which as pointed out in another thread ignore incorporeality.

I'm batting for team Evil - spontaneous Cure spells weren't in my toolkit, and didn't seem useful against a dozen shadows at any rate.


The system-level solution for flying monsters is to bring a bow. There isn't one in the PHB for rogues vs no sneak attack, but that's because rogues aren't actually supposed to depend on sneak attack. Not even every round, let alone every attack. They can swing or shoot just like everyone else, and whether people admit it or not that damage is not zero.

It's not zero, true. But with their lower BAB and often negligible Strength, that 1d4-1 damage really doesn't feel like "meaningful participation" - especially at higher levels.


If anything, the real point of sneak attack is in punishing monsters that "just walk past" or grapple or swallow whole.

Tell me more.


Standard undead don't actually have the biggest hit points due to their lack of con bonus (this could even be a secondary reason for why SA doesn't work on them), you shouldn't need huge damage bonuses to fight them.

IIRC, undead are kinda kings of HP bloat - a CR 6 zombie can have an average of… 133 HP, normal max 243, min-maxing max… 363 HP?


When people expect sneak attack to work on everything, it means they expect way more damage on every attack than the monsters are actually written for- because they'll want that damage against every monster, and also on every attack, on multiple attacks, in addition to as much other damage as they can buy, and there's a high chance they're comparing themselves to 2:1 power attack with mysteriously un-impacted accuracy. Myself, I put those ACFs on the ban list for missing the point.

At 20th level, against that CR 6 Mook zombie, the Rogue's 4 attacks (with haste) for 1d4+3 damage (8 base strength, +6 strength booster, +1 weapon), dealing roughly 16.5 damage per round, should kill that average zombie in, what, 8 rounds? That… doesn't feel like making a meaningful contribution.


Oh man, equipment slots. I've got pages of notes going around in circles on how to try fixing that one. I like equipment slots, but it's just flat impossible to reconcile all the different methods of thought one can use to justify X being a slot with having a limited set, most particularly when you need to adapt an existing set that is already a mashup that also requires a specific number of items as part of the expected loadout. It's maddening :smalleek:

I'd love to hear your thoughts on this. Relevant to this thread?


If you want staple hazards like cliffs or lava pits or core Wall of Fire spells, forced movement can't just be easy. The core of the game is based on tactical combat and resource management, so at-will magic kinda breaks it into tiny little pieces if you don't keep a firm leash on things- creating an even worse haves and have-nots situation.


And at-will sword swings don't make muggles the "haves" already?




I mean, I think it's funny how it was perfectly fine even before PF and "no one" cared. I literally had a combat healer build for my Red Hand of Doom party, and could only threaten them with save-or-die tier damage or by running them out of spells. But when the points of comparison for "the internet" are monsters optimized to fight uberchargers and their ilk. . .

I always use my weasel words of "is considered highly suboptimal" to describe combat healing, because I know some tables find it works great.


The thing that makes blasting scale so poorly is that it stops scaling. 1st-2nd level spells deal 1d6/2 levels, 3rd level spells deal 1d6/level, and spells above that deal. . . 1d6/level. The caps go up, but the actual level based damage doesn't.

Lol. "Linear Wizards" :smallwink:


(heck, 3.0 says high again with 3.0 Haste being there when it was originally written),

3.0 gave more love to muggles. Long live 3.0!


Trapfinding.
the status removal role,

There is a definite question of the extent to which "role" and "class" should be coupled.

[Psyren]

But… that doesn't matter to 3e :smallconfused:


Read past the headline:


Obviously if we're around here we like or have some interest in the system, but what do you view as the fundamental flaws and shortcomings of the D&D 3e game? Pathfinder is fair game too.

[Silly Name]

Given that IRL is estimated at "e7", I would expect skills to get "unrealistic". So, what's the problem?

I think the issue is that at high levels, skill-monkey characters can easily bypass a lot of DCs by virtue of having astronomically high modifiers. The system scales poorly past a certain point.

For example, in my very first campaign, the party's Rogue ended up with an Open Lock modifier of 23 around level 14. He didn't even particularly try to game the system to get it that high, it simply was a result of investing in the skill using Core books and the Complete X line of splats.

With that modifier, he basically insta-passed most locks made by the book - if I wanted him to face any actual risk of failure, I had to inflate the numbers of the DC. Had the same issue with hidden traps and doors and Spot checks, the Ranger could basically spot anything that wasn't magically concealed (and even then, he had ways to see through that).

Similar issues apply to skills like Jump and Climb. When it's an Hide check opposed by a Spot check of an adequately skilled, CR-appropriate opponent, the system works regardless of level because both the player and the NPC have comparable numbers, but skills that tend to be used against set DCs that don't scale with level end up turning irrelevant.

I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing that the Rogue could open almost any lock in the world, or if a Barbarian is the best mortal free-climber to ever live. Those are cool things and characters are supposed to get to do cool things, but I do regret that the skill system ends up becoming irrelevant apart from qualifying for PrCs and feats if you get at an high enough level.

(Also, Epic levels don't really fix this because either there's too big a gap between Epic DCs and "common" DCs, or Epic DCs are just as easily bypassable)

[ExLibrisMortis]

I think the issue is that at high levels, skill-monkey characters can easily bypass a lot of DCs by virtue of having astronomically high modifiers. The system scales poorly past a certain point.
I think it's practically required by the steep power scaling that certain mundane skills become trivial or obsolete. In that sense, the mechanics reflect the universe quite well--as mundane locks become irrelevant, so does the skill that counters them. But I do agree that it's not elegant to have a skill that stops featuring in challenges if you invest only a middling amount*. You'd either have to recast the skill as something broader that can include high-level challenges (uh... locked portals?) or introduce an opposed skill (Craft (lock)). For the first, you have Disable Device right there waiting for a merger, though it's still not easy to find mundane uses that warrant DCs of 40+ without simply calling a device "a difficult version of the DC 30 thing". For the second, it might feel rather forced ("Yes there are epic locksmiths with guidance of the avatar, now roll that DC 90 Open Lock check!"), but it does match how Forgery and Use Rope/Escape Artist work, for example.



*If something becomes irrelevant because you invest an ungodly amount of build resources into being absolutely insanely good at that thing, that's different--you can't balance around crazy minmaxing (without sacrificing the openness of the system, and I'm not willing to do that), and it's probably best to manage that sort of thing OOC (table agreements and so on).

[NigelWalmsley]

Classes give access to roles. Leveling grows you horizontally; your first level in Fighter gave you "Striker", your second level, you chose "Striker(ranged)". The Wizard took the role "Striker(ranged) at 1st level, then dipped Fighter for "Tank".

It's not really clear to me what that system does in any meaningful detail. As such, I cannot speak the particulars of its balance. I suspect the system you're describing is something that is not meaningfully class-based, and hence can't really be described as "Open Multiclassing".


Given that IRL is estimated at "e7", I would expect skills to get "unrealistic". So, what's the problem?

You expect the game to get unrealistic. There's no particular reason that needs to be accomplished by the same subsystem that handles questions like "can you climb that tree". Trying to do that results in a system where even characters who are nominally equally powerful, and nominally equally specialized, differ in capabilities by the whole of the RNG. It requires you to scale things that fundamentally do not scale. It breaks interactions between high and low level characters (e.g. children can't hide from Dragons).


I don't see how this makes CR inherently bad design.

It doesn't. CR is actually quite good design. The idea that you have a number that represents "this monster should be used in encounters at this level" is good. The issue is the expectation that a typical encounter is a single monster.


Examples?

In terms of clustering, the obvious thing is that the monsters-as-PCs rules have the same fundamental problem as Open Multiclassing. If you take a succubus and try to start advancing it as a PC, it basically has to start over, because there's no class that advances its completely arbitrary demon powers in any meaningful way.

For the other thing, the most obvious example is the WBL rules. The treasure tables produce outputs that map very well to the expected WBL. It's just that WBL is a stupid system, and generally too low at the levels most people play.


IIRC, undead are kinda kings of HP bloat - a CR 6 zombie can have an average of… 133 HP, normal max 243, min-maxing max… 363 HP?

Undead tend to get HD beyond CR and have the biggest HD in the game. It's true they don't get a Constitution score, but plenty of undead have reasonable HP piles for their level. Look at e.g. the Ghast and the Ogre. Same CR, same HP.

[Quertus]

Read past the headline:

If it said, "Chess is fair game for this discussion", it still wouldn't affect what flaws exist in 3e.

If, however, it said, "only discuss 3.pf, (as defined by <this link>) in this thread", that would be different.


I think the issue is that at high levels, skill-monkey characters can easily bypass a lot of DCs by virtue of having astronomically high modifiers. The system scales poorly past a certain point.

For example, in my very first campaign, the party's Rogue ended up with an Open Lock modifier of 23 around level 14. He didn't even particularly try to game the system to get it that high, it simply was a result of investing in the skill using Core books and the Complete X line of splats.

With that modifier, he basically insta-passed most locks made by the book - if I wanted him to face any actual risk of failure, I had to inflate the numbers of the DC. Had the same issue with hidden traps and doors and Spot checks, the Ranger could basically spot anything that wasn't magically concealed (and even then, he had ways to see through that).

Similar issues apply to skills like Jump and Climb. When it's an Hide check opposed by a Spot check of an adequately skilled, CR-appropriate opponent, the system works regardless of level because both the player and the NPC have comparable numbers, but skills that tend to be used against set DCs that don't scale with level end up turning irrelevant.

I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing that the Rogue could open almost any lock in the world, or if a Barbarian is the best mortal free-climber to ever live. Those are cool things and characters are supposed to get to do cool things, but I do regret that the skill system ends up becoming irrelevant apart from qualifying for PrCs and feats if you get at an high enough level.

(Also, Epic levels don't really fix this because either there's too big a gap between Epic DCs and "common" DCs, or Epic DCs are just as easily bypassable)

… and Thor or most "great heroes" stomp ants and small children and mooks with ease. I'm still not seeing the problem here.


It's not really clear to me what that system does in any meaningful detail. As such, I cannot speak the particulars of its balance. I suspect the system you're describing is something that is not meaningfully class-based, and hence can't really be described as "Open Multiclassing".

Fair. Think d20 modern, crossed with… hmmm… ToB (but dialed to 11), I suppose. Each level in a class grants your choice of class ability, which modify your progression / are relevant at high level (like Power Attack, Monk Wisdom to AC, Paladin Charisma to Saves), rather than having static bonuses.


You expect the game to get unrealistic. There's no particular reason that needs to be accomplished by the same subsystem that handles questions like "can you climb that tree". Trying to do that results in a system where even characters who are nominally equally powerful, and nominally equally specialized, differ in capabilities by the whole of the RNG. It requires you to scale things that fundamentally do not scale. It breaks interactions between high and low level characters (e.g. children can't hide from Dragons).

Children cannot hide from Dragons? Hmmm… sounds like such hide & seek is something you'd want… oh, nothing *forces* Dragons to take ranks in Perception, right?


It doesn't. CR is actually quite good design. The idea that you have a number that represents "this monster should be used in encounters at this level" is good. The issue is the expectation that a typical encounter is a single monster.

Oh, the *expectation*? Yeah, that's bad.


In terms of clustering, the obvious thing is that the monsters-as-PCs rules have the same fundamental problem as Open Multiclassing. If you take a succubus and try to start advancing it as a PC, it basically has to start over, because there's no class that advances its completely arbitrary demon powers in any meaningful way.

Yeah, sadness. Sounds like a perfect opportunity for a new custom prestige class. Which… shrug, could go either way as "bug" or "feature".

The fact that there is no built-in elegant route sounds like "bug", but i can see the 2e logic of "feature": you can spend your levels to "round out" the character.


For the other thing, the most obvious example is the WBL rules. The treasure tables produce outputs that map very well to the expected WBL. It's just that WBL is a stupid system, and generally too low at the levels most people play.

You think people should have *more* gear than WBL gives, because… ?

[Silly Name]

… and Thor or most "great heroes" stomp ants and small children and mooks with ease. I'm still not seeing the problem here.

As I said, the issue of wasn't that the Rogue became an expert lockpick who couldn't be deterred by most locks - the issue is that the system scales poorly with certain skills, turning them moot if the character invests in them even at a normal rate.

The issue was that the system gave me no tools to challenge that skill anymore after a certain, short of crafting ridiculous scenarios where doors and chest had locks crafted by the very gods.

Again, I like 3.5's skill system, I think the core concept and structure is sound and allows for a good deal of customisation - but at high levels it starts to unravel because the game doesn't provide good ways to challenge characters who simply max their skills and use masterwork tools, which is the bare minimum of investment they can make.

Thor can crush ants, but "fighting ants" isn't part of what Thor does, so it's not an issue that ants aren't a problem for him. The Rogue in question was a spy and an infiltrator, so skills like Hide, Open Lock, Listen etc were part of his character concept, but when he got high enough level rolling for certain things turned out to be pointless.

Again, it makes sense and it's right that the Rogue could open the vast majority of locks in the game world - but what if I, as the DM, want to make that check an important part of a session or a dungeon? What if I want the skill of opening stuff be relevant to the adventure so that the Rogue gets a moment to shine thanks to his unique skillset? If the Rogue auto-succeeds, that moment in the limelight falls moot because everyone at the table knows there is no risk of failure, so there is no tension.

[Kurald Galain]

I think the issue is that at high levels, skill-monkey characters can easily bypass a lot of DCs by virtue of having astronomically high modifiers. The system scales poorly past a certain point.
Yes, because experts are supposed to be good at their area of expertise. This is how it works in pretty much every RPG ever (plus real life), except that 4E and 5E take the philosophy that "experts" should randomly fail quite often.


The issue was that the system gave me no tools to challenge that skill anymore after a certain, short of crafting ridiculous scenarios where doors and chest had locks crafted by the very gods.
The catch that you're missing is that "make a skill check" is not a challenge. "Get the wagon into the castle undetected" is a challenge, and skill checks are one of several ways in which characters might attempt it. In other words, in a better-written adventure (regardless of system) this issue goes away.

[MeimuHakurei]

Yes, because experts are supposed to be good at their area of expertise. This is how it works in pretty much every RPG ever (plus real life), except that 4E and 5E take the philosophy that "experts" should randomly fail quite often.


The catch that you're missing is that "make a skill check" is not a challenge. "Get the wagon into the castle undetected" is a challenge, and skill checks are one of several ways in which characters might attempt it. In other words, in a better-written adventure (regardless of system) this issue goes away.

I do agree that there's nothing inherently challenging about a single skill check, except maybe a minor decision point on whether to use a daily resource to boost the skill in a given moment. The thing that makes skill checks scale poorly in 3.5 is that after a certain point (which can be quite early), investing any further into a skill stops giving you any kind of improvement. There's only very marginal gains left after you have +19 Ride, +5 Survival, +14 Tumble, +19 Use Magic Device...

Not to mention that certain skills just straight up stop mattering at higher levels - who needs Climb if you can fly? Who needs Speak Language if tongues is readily available? What good is Use Rope against freedom of movement? Why use Heal if magical healing is so much better? How is Gather Information supposed to be comparable to most forms of divination?

[Kurald Galain]

after a certain point (which can be quite early), investing any further into a skill stops giving you any kind of improvement. There's only very marginal gains left after you have +19 Ride, +5 Survival, +14 Tumble, +19 Use Magic Device...
Yes, and why is that a problem? It is simply not practical to have every single skill be equally useful at all levels.

To make a comparison: in real life, I stopped training handwriting after primary school. My skill in handwriting is good enough so I've been learning other things (and I am not interested in becoming a calligraphy master). I don't see how that's an issue.

[NigelWalmsley]

Fair. Think d20 modern, crossed with… hmmm… ToB (but dialed to 11), I suppose. Each level in a class grants your choice of class ability, which modify your progression / are relevant at high level (like Power Attack, Monk Wisdom to AC, Paladin Charisma to Saves), rather than having static bonuses.

At that point you don't really have a classed system. If you can take any class at any level, and select any ability from whatever class you take, the class isn't doing anything meaningful. You functionally have a system where you can take any ability at any level.


Children cannot hide from Dragons? Hmmm… sounds like such hide & seek is something you'd want… oh, nothing *forces* Dragons to take ranks in Perception, right?

If Dragons don't take ranks in Spot/Listen/Perception, then mid or high level characters can hide from them trivially. I think what you really want for skills is a system that's pretty close to 5e's Bounded Accuracy. You don't necessarily want it to be impossible for someone to be "good at hiding", but the idea that you can have "20th level hiding" or "7th level cooking" or whatever is not necessary.


Yeah, sadness. Sounds like a perfect opportunity for a new custom prestige class. Which… shrug, could go either way as "bug" or "feature".

That solution doesn't work. You will never write enough prestige classes for people to play all the monster characters they want, and to a large degree even doing so only forestalls the problem. What happens when the succubus has taken all the levels of Infernal Temptress? You're in the same place you started, unless you write every PrC to graft on something other ones can advance.


You think people should have *more* gear than WBL gives, because… ?

At mid levels WBL is not sufficient for characters to get the bonuses the game expects them to have. It is particularly not sufficient for them to do that and get magic items that are actually interesting. I think the best solution would be to re-write the game so people are not expected to have magic items at all (or maybe use PF's Automatic Bonus Progression or the bonuses from Vow of Poverty as a stopgap), but since that's a massive amount of work -- hence why I consider this particular issue a fundamental flaw -- the minimum would be to increase the number of items particular characters get.


Yes, and why is that a problem? It is simply not practical to have every single skill be equally useful at all levels.

Sure. Which is exactly why the game shouldn't go around suggesting that there is a 20th level application of Use Rope. A skill system that covers a finite number of use cases is fine, and 3e's system works when treated that way, but that's not what it actually is.

[Kurald Galain]

Sure. Which is exactly why the game shouldn't go around suggesting that there is a 20th level application of Use Rope.
And indeed, it doesn't.


A skill system that covers a finite number of use cases is fine, and 3e's system works when treated that way, but that's not what it actually is.
I think that's an assumption by some forum users, not something stated in any of the rulebooks...

[Brenden1k]

At that point you don't really have a classed system. If you can take any class at any level, and select any ability from whatever class you take, the class isn't doing anything meaningful. You functionally have a system where you can take any ability at any level.



If Dragons don't take ranks in Spot/Listen/Perception, then mid or high level characters can hide from them trivially. I think what you really want for skills is a system that's pretty close to 5e's Bounded Accuracy. You don't necessarily want it to be impossible for someone to be "good at hiding", but the idea that you can have "20th level hiding" or "7th level cooking" or whatever is not necessary.


At mid levels WBL is not sufficient for characters to get the bonuses the game expects them to have. It is particularly not sufficient for them to do that and get magic items that are actually interesting. I think the best solution would be to re-write the game so people are not expected to have magic items at all (or maybe use PF's Automatic Bonus Progression or the bonuses from Vow of Poverty as a stopgap), but since that's a massive amount of work -- hence why I consider this particular issue a fundamental flaw -- the minimum would be to increase the number of items particular characters get.



Sure. Which is exactly why the game shouldn't go around suggesting that there is a 20th level application of Use Rope. A skill system that covers a finite number of use cases is fine, and 3e's system works when treated that way, but that's not what it actually is.


It might be good if the game offered some kind of skills retraining option, or something to get rid of skills no longer useful? and maybe use rope and other skills that scale poorly could have one half training cost?

As for monster classes, if they last 20 levels with epic levels that is a match for most normal gameplay?

Is the WBL issue only for martial classes, it would make sense, spellcasters can replace a lot of magic items with spells, and a basic spell does a another dice for each level, martial classes damage does not automatically increase per level, so strength boosting magic items, extra damage per attack and such things are all needed. (maybe a artificer cohort would not be a bad idea), again since i get the impression high level d&D is about epic heroes, it is weird how one can get enough bab to make five attacks, and enough hitpoints to take a lava bath, but rule wise one is not stronger or faster. Prehaps if one half bab was added to strength and reflex and fortitude saves were added to con (heck one can limit them by preventing the bonus attributes from boosting the same exact roll as attribute, though prehaps getting complicated and might favor save and die effect more) Things would make more sense with fighters that can fight gods having the strength, dex, con of a mythic hero and making it a lot easier to do without a magic sword when one got the strength to add ten damage a hit and the con to take the beating of your attacks.

[D+1]

It's been pointed out many times that the Core books include more "power spiral" problems than any supplements that followed.And at what levels did those problems really surface?

The idea of players having free access to content rather than it being strictly adjudicated by the GM is what brought the game into the modern age. Dictator-DM is a really bad way to play a cooperative game. That freedom of player option is 3e's main virtue compared to other editions.But when the core books, by your own admission, include more "power spiral" problems than any supplements that followed how did ANY of those following supplements FIX THE PROBLEM? The only thing that fixes it is a "dictator" DM who puts a foot down and says, "This is okay, THAT is not," because nobody otherwise able to address that problem ever did (nor even acknowledged there was a problem) - and as far as I can see actually only poured gas on the fire.


I have quit campaigns over announcements that they were switching to E6. I don't think I'd actually stay with any edition of D&D if 3.5's power curve wasn't a thing - if I'd wanted one certain power level, self-contained in one set of rules, I would probably go and play a different game. D&D, to me, was always about outgrowing your environment every so often, and moving onto something bigger.

Actually, 5e is for the most part E6 stretched over 20 levels and with bigger numbers, but it's still the same philosophy - keep the players and the enemies somewhat grounded and limited, and requiring far less effort from both players and the DM to run properly. And yes, that works out for popularity - but that doesn't make 5e an objectively better system than 3.5.Just so I understand, are you actually praising 5E for essentially being E6 stretched over 20 levels, yet hate E6 so much you HAVE actually quit games that switched to it, even though you're saying it's much the same approach to the game and keeping the epicness in check?


To me d&d seems built around that power spiral in a way and maybe not the most sensible way, most rpg hand out xp that can be used raise traits, D&d hands out level ups with the implied level up characters are better in every way, it also i get the impression maybe takes a lot from myth, mythical heroes are differently level 20, King Arthur can slay a hundred men in a charge and some of the stories really make the knights of round table sound like anime heroes. Cu chulainn can fight armies and throw a spear across Ireland, Beowulf can slay monstersPerhaps my core issue is that D&D originally was intended to be most reflective of Conan, not King Arthur, or Hector and Achilles. Again, surveys indicate that even today with 5E, when D&D gets beyond somewhere about level 7, nine out of ten people quite apparently don't WANT to go any higher. Actual play seems to be solidly Conan-levels of D&D heroism, but despite vastly fewer people ACTUALLY playing super-heroism and greek-myth levels of heroism the hue and cry isn't to step back and look at making the lower levels actually the primary focus of efforts, but to get moar epic. That confuses me.


Issue is WOTC thought monks special features were so powerfulOh don't get me started on monks. Since 1E they've gotten the short end for various reasons, and yet I've always thought it was a fun and interesting class to include in D&D.

Again, I don't have any issue with anyone who wants epic level D&D. Game and be happy. I am suggesting that epic level D&D fans are outnumbered (by 9:1 it seems) and survey information for 3E has always suggested that, it suggested it for 1E and 2E, and WotC's own data for 5E shows it plainly. And bringing it back closer to the original topic, E6 - as a solution to 3E's flaws and ills - is a great idea.

[ExLibrisMortis]

But when the core books, by your own admission, include more "power spiral" problems than any supplements that followed how did ANY of those following supplements FIX THE PROBLEM? The only thing that fixes it is a "dictator" DM who puts a foot down and says, "This is okay, THAT is not," [...]
That's nonsense. Clearly, it is up to the group as a whole to decide at what power level they want to play. The DM's vote is weighed by their ability to run the chosen power level, of course--no point running high-OP with a DM who doesn't know the meta upside down. However, once that baseline power level is agreed on, each individual in the group will select character options--from all sources--that result in that power level, and if required present it to the group for approval (or applause, if it's an optimization contest). At no point during this process is it useful to "put your foot down".

Splatbooks didn't completely fix balance problems in core, but they did introduce many options that can allow players to build different concepts at different power levels. For example, in the general category of "stealthy caster", you have rogue/assassin, spellthief, trickster spellthief, beguiler, beguiler/unseen seer, wizard/unseen seer, wizard/assassin/ultimate magus, and so on, and so on, in endless permutations. This continuum is relatively smooth--you can choose a lot of slightly different power levels--because there are many options that can be mixed. Having more sources open directly improves your ability to balance in practice, even if doesn't improve balance in theory.

[Quertus]

That's nonsense. Clearly, it is up to the group as a whole to decide at what power level they want to play. The DM's vote is weighed by their ability to run the chosen power level, of course--no point running high-OP with a DM who doesn't know the meta upside down. However, once that baseline power level is agreed on, each individual in the group will select character options--from all sources--that result in that power level, and if required present it to the group for approval (or applause, if it's an optimization contest). At no point during this process is it useful to "put your foot down".

Splatbooks didn't completely fix balance problems in core, but they did introduce many options that can allow players to build different concepts at different power levels. For example, in the general category of "stealthy caster", you have rogue/assassin, spellthief, trickster spellthief, beguiler, beguiler/unseen seer, wizard/unseen seer, wizard/assassin/ultimate magus, and so on, and so on, in endless permutations. This continuum is relatively smooth--you can choose a lot of slightly different power levels--because there are many options that can be mixed. Having more sources open directly improves your ability to balance in practice, even if doesn't improve balance in theory.

Woot woot! Huzzah! Hip hip hooray! May such sanity rule the day!

Well put. Kudos!

[Tiktakkat]

Tournament Rules.
The d20 system is a set of rules for playing the game at conventions. Everything is (theoretically) made to fit standard definitions, with everything (theoretically) defined. No matter what. Or else. Period.
This was done to eliminate the dizzying array of minor variations in spells and items, and to cut down on any DM "interpretations" between tables.
Which is nice theory, but not so great in practice, and less functional outside of convention play.
Perhaps the most blatant examples are shield and haste - the spells that is. Shield has the word "shield" in it. So it has to follow the rules for mundane shields. Which originally resulted in all the absurdities of a tower shield added to a magic force field. Likewise haste had to fit into the action structure, and so it gave an extra action. Never mind the double spellcasting it enabled, it had to fit the action structure. Both of these wound up "fixed" for 3.5.
Even more absurd are things where the rules trip on themselves. RAW, the feat Ride-By Attack can never be used. Read the rules for charge attacks and look at the diagram. You have to move directly toward the target, which is the center of the target's square. You cannot have your mount overrun the target. Nothing in Ride-By Attack changes that. Oh sure, the name clearly implies it, but the text does not. Oops?
And while it may seem that having standard rules for everything is a Good Thing (TM), the simple reality of game play is that there are too many variable circumstances for them to ever make rules or set DCs for "everything", leaving DMs to "wing it" anyway. That of course led to the FAQ and the joy of stealth errata.

Power Creep
While power creep was certainly an issue in AD&D, there was a distinct refusal to recognize just how pernicious the effects were and do anything to ameliorate them. This is most obvious in the magic system, and pretty much why the whole "quadratic casters, linear fighters" thing exist.
There are a minimum of twice the number of arcane spells, and 4 times the number of divine spells per spell level in d20. No wonder casters can do "everything".
And between bonus spells and expected encounters, casters have 3-5 times the number of spell slots per day, again expanding their power.
And every new book made that worse.

Martials Just Suck
AD&D did not have the iterative attack penalty or the full attack penalty. Pretty much all there is to say there.
Why did martials need the iterative attack penalty and full attack penalty? Especially when spellcasters were getting tons of extra spells.

Casters Just Rule
In AD&D, saves just got better and better. And better. And better. Oh, a couple of high level spells had save penalties hardwired in, or had no saves, but most were straight up, and by 10th level fighters and rogues had a basic 50% chance to save versus spells. Any spells, just just Fort saves for fighters and Reflex saves for rogues.
Why did saves get harder? Especially when spellcasters were getting tons of extra spells.

DVP - Designer Versus Player
"Rules Mastery" must have sounded so cool when someone thought it up, but seriously, deliberately weaker choices built into the system that players have to "learn" to avoid?
Then using them to "balance" prestige classes?
Yeah . . . no. That one should never have survived playtesting.

Rool of Kewl
I know this is an RPG, and a fantasy RPG at that, but at some point the core wargaming/combat system has to be remembered, and some of the more ridiculous ideas for weapons and armor have to be left for "inspirational" artwork rather that be written up. This has a particular synergy with Power Creep, typically manifesting in the more ridiculous racial weapons, as well as things like the Meepo/kobold fetish.

Pretty much every specific problem stems from one of those general categories, with the worse ones combining elements from multiple categories.

[Necroticplague]

I think the fact that attack bonuses scale by level, but AC essentially scales by items, is a fundamental design flaw.

[Ignimortis]

Just so I understand, are you actually praising 5E for essentially being E6 stretched over 20 levels, yet hate E6 so much you HAVE actually quit games that switched to it, even though you're saying it's much the same approach to the game and keeping the epicness in check?


I'm not praising 5e. I'm saying it works to its' popularity, because that's what the majority likes. I don't like it, and I believe it to be bad for D&D, which does lately position itself as a generic fantasy adventure system. 3.5 supports a lot of power levels, both lower than 5e and much, much higher than 5e.

Frankly, I'm an unabashed elitist who believes that most people just don't want to deal with issues that arise from higher power levels, the furthermost of which is, basically, it's not the same as it was at the lower level. When you have characters for whom a thousand orcs isn't a problem, as in, your party's martial can walk out in front of that army and take half an hour slaughtering them while the orcs can't do anything meaningful in response, you need to change your approach to the narrative and worldbuilding. A lot of people (neither DMs nor players) don't want to deal with that, and they're being catered to with E6 and 5e.

[Lucas Yew]

The very idea that moving more than 5 feet makes it impossible to swing a simple weapon twice or more is, at my best censoring, some anti-intellectual monstrosity. Whoever thought that was a realistic (snort) depiction should really reconsider their perception of real life martial arts (or any amateur athletic activity) in general...

And I think retroactively the idea of inflating all hit points for both sides of the game times their HD size without doing the same for honest at-will damage coupled with practical mobility was also quite anti-intellectual.

[Psyren]

I think the fact that attack bonuses scale by level, but AC essentially scales by items, is a fundamental design flaw.

Given that attack bonuses also scale by items, I guess I'm having a little trouble parsing this one.

[Vampyre_Lord]

My first thought is that one of the FUNDAMENTAL flaws is how WotC handled everything.
From the story that the druid playtester never bothered to wildshape, to the fact that it feels like authors weren't allowed to communicate, even when working on the same book. Power creep ran rampant imho.

If WotC had properly playtester the material in core, and then held a tighter reign on newly published material... We might have ended up with 5e xD (or at least my understanding of it)

[Silly Name]

When you have characters for whom a thousand orcs isn't a problem, as in, your party's martial can walk out in front of that army and take half an hour slaughtering them while the orcs can't do anything meaningful in response, you need to change your approach to the narrative and worldbuilding. A lot of people (neither DMs nor players) don't want to deal with that, and they're being catered to with E6 and 5e.

I think one of the issues I've personally had with high-level martials slaughtering armies is that it's much easier, and faster, for me as a DM to simply rule that they do it and we don't need to spend two hours simulating this combat. In effect it's no different than the Wizard shooting fireballs and meteor swarms and other powerful, immediate AoEs. But the Wizard gets to actually resolve the situation by applying their powers, while the Fighter is getting handwaved because the game's combat is designed around two groups of 4 to 8 people each engaging in battle.

Even if the Fighter in question had Great Cleave and a way to move in-between Cleaves so that he could theoretically mow down all the soldiers in one go, and also Whirlwind Attack and similar ways to attack multiple enemies at once, it's still a terribly slow dredge to go through because we have to make scores of Attack Rolls (without counting that, statistically, one time out of twenty they'll Nat 1 and then we have to make the soldiers take their turn and it makes me want to die), and so it ends up being more of an informed attribute rather than something the characters do.

Like, I'm pretty sure a few of my players can build martials that can absolutely withstand armies of hundreds, I think they did make those characters already since we had a four-years long campaign taking them from level 3 to 20. But actually playing out that scene, instead of narrating it, is not something any of us would want to do when we can instead play out a fight with a Great Wyrm or an Elder Brain or the Tarrasque.

So it's not so much that some people don't want martials to be able to do this stuff, but rather that they dislike how it would look like in actual play. The Wizard gets to push a button and be done with it, while the Fighter... the Fighter needs and deserves a similar button to push, but it's not there.


For what it's worth, I always rule that PCs that go above level 10 are extremely rare, and those above level 15 are "once in a thousand years" occurrence, with level 20s being mythical. What keeps them in check is powerful monsters and extraplanar threats and Celestial and Fiends trying to rope those guys into their service, whisking them away from the Material.

[Crake]

I think one of the issues I've personally had with high-level martials slaughtering armies is that it's much easier, and faster, for me as a DM to simply rule that they do it and we don't need to spend two hours simulating this combat. In effect it's no different than the Wizard shooting fireballs and meteor swarms and other powerful, immediate AoEs. But the Wizard gets to actually resolve the situation by applying their powers, while the Fighter is getting handwaved because the game's combat is designed around two groups of 4 to 8 people each engaging in battle.

Even if the Fighter in question had Great Cleave and a way to move in-between Cleaves so that he could theoretically mow down all the soldiers in one go, and also Whirlwind Attack and similar ways to attack multiple enemies at once, it's still a terribly slow dredge to go through because we have to make scores of Attack Rolls (without counting that, statistically, one time out of twenty they'll Nat 1 and then we have to make the soldiers take their turn and it makes me want to die), and so it ends up being more of an informed attribute rather than something the characters do.

Like, I'm pretty sure a few of my players can build martials that can absolutely withstand armies of hundreds, I think they did make those characters already since we had a four-years long campaign taking them from level 3 to 20. But actually playing out that scene, instead of narrating it, is not something any of us would want to do when we can instead play out a fight with a Great Wyrm or an Elder Brain or the Tarrasque.

So it's not so much that some people don't want martials to be able to do this stuff, but rather that they dislike how it would look like in actual play. The Wizard gets to push a button and be done with it, while the Fighter... the Fighter needs and deserves a similar button to push, but it's not there.


For what it's worth, I always rule that PCs that go above level 10 are extremely rare, and those above level 15 are "once in a thousand years" occurrence, with level 20s being mythical. What keeps them in check is powerful monsters and extraplanar threats and Celestial and Fiends trying to rope those guys into their service, whisking them away from the Material.

Isn't heroes of battle the book that covers the rules for this exact thing? Using squads instead of individuals, so a fighter can just attack a "squad" of enemies and, should he deal enough damage, just kill them in one round? kinda like swarm rules but... not quite.

[Silly Name]

Isn't heroes of battle the book that covers the rules for this exact thing? Using squads instead of individuals, so a fighter can just attack a "squad" of enemies and, should he deal enough damage, just kill them in one round? kinda like swarm rules but... not quite.

I don't think? I think HoB is a very great book for running a campaign where war has a large role, but it suggests (and I think it's right) that you should run the big battles by giving the PCs a specific objective in the larger strategy (conquer that tower, destroy the enemy's supply lines, hold this hill at all costs...) and have them fight against small squads composed by individual soldiers. The sample encounters it provides describe how the military units they'll meet are composed, down to telling you which page in the MM those foes are.

The Miniature's Handbook has rules for skirmishes and mass combat but IIRC the assumption is that you want to pitch those squads against other squads, not the PCs, and it would get quite messy if you did. It fundamentally pans things out, moving the action from single characters to squads and armies. It does have rules for the presence of big, battle-changing single creatures on the battlefield, though, so there's that.

But, to me, the fact the only way to make "single fighter holds back army" mechanically viable is to alter the rules of the game is more of a band-aid than a real solution. You're not so much giving the martials a tool to do what they should do, you're more or less obviating the need for the tool by solving the problem for them.

D&D is geared towards small encounters between bands of adventurers, or a band of adventurers versus a great monster or a small squad of specialised foes, that's not the issue. The issue is that at high levels some characters get the tools to level towns in a few rounds, and others get a slightly better chance of hitting their enemies.

[Quertus]

Frankly, I'm an unabashed elitist who believes that most people just don't want to deal with issues that arise from higher power levels, the furthermost of which is, basically, it's not the same as it was at the lower level. When you have characters for whom a thousand orcs isn't a problem, as in, your party's martial can walk out in front of that army and take half an hour slaughtering them while the orcs can't do anything meaningful in response, you need to change your approach to the narrative and worldbuilding. A lot of people (neither DMs nor players) don't want to deal with that, and they're being catered to with E6 and 5e.

But I designed this puddle and hotdog to be a challenge! 2" of still water should be fatal! Hotdogs are choking hazards, and don't get me started on hard food! You need to stay babies forever, otherwise you ruin the fun of the game!

[Ashtagon]

Isn't heroes of battle the book that covers the rules for this exact thing? Using squads instead of individuals, so a fighter can just attack a "squad" of enemies and, should he deal enough damage, just kill them in one round? kinda like swarm rules but... not quite.

Not really. HoB essentially asks the DM to frame the battlefield as a "dungeon", and the PCs move from one "encounter to another, same as a dungeon. Only instead of an encounter being a "dungeon room", it's "an advancing enemy squadron" or "a trench with an enemy archery squad" or "a guard post with a ballista".

So the PCs get their four daily encounters on an pen battlefield, and then the DM is asked to use their success (or lack of it) in thei encounters as a guide to deciding on a narrative result for the overall battlefield. At no point do the PCs get to attack a "squad" as a single unit.

iirc, The 3.5e DMG2 contains rules for defining mobs of enemies, and I think the Miniatures Handbook contains a successor to the 2e Battle System for mass combat.

Personally, I always found the BECMI D&D mass combat system (as seen in the Companion Set, Rules Cyclopedia, and one or two modules) to offer the most satisfying way to resolve mass combats, especially if going for a more strategic or operational level military campaign.

[Ignimortis]

I think one of the issues I've personally had with high-level martials slaughtering armies is that it's much easier, and faster, for me as a DM to simply rule that they do it and we don't need to spend two hours simulating this combat. In effect it's no different than the Wizard shooting fireballs and meteor swarms and other powerful, immediate AoEs. But the Wizard gets to actually resolve the situation by applying their powers, while the Fighter is getting handwaved because the game's combat is designed around two groups of 4 to 8 people each engaging in battle.

I don't mind it getting handwaved and not rolled out, IF it's mechanically plausible that such a thing could actually happen. If the martial in question has Great Cleave and maybe Vampiric on their weapon, while the enemy soldiers can only hit them on a 20 (or cannot hit them at all, if nat20s are disabled), then I'm perfectly fine with it being said "yeah, you do that, give me a short account of how glorious and brutal that was, and we'll move on".

Or just use some sort of subsystem. I've had my players destroy an army of four thousand enemies - by making an encounter with an upscaled grid and a few gargantuan/colossal "squads" with swarm rules and hard-hitting attacks/spells.


But I designed this puddle and hotdog to be a challenge! 2" of still water should be fatal! Hotdogs are choking hazards, and don't get me started on hard food! You need to stay babies forever, otherwise you ruin the fun of the game!

A rather apt metaphor, yes. A lot of DMs kinda throw in the towel at the point the party can easily bypass obstacles such as tall walls, unbreakable doors, and time limits such as "you only have a month in which to do X".

[Necroticplague]

Given that attack bonuses also scale by items, I guess I'm having a little trouble parsing this one.

Without any items, a level 20 fighter and a level 1 one will have roughly the same AC, give or take a couple points if the former puts points into DEX.

The first one, however, will have a much higher to-hit, thanks to HD providing BaB, while doing nothing for AC.

So, the attack bonus will scale by both level and items, while it's opponent will largely only scale by items, unless specific classes and feats are chosen. This makes trying to avoid the rocket tag an ever-increasingly difficult treadmill.

[Psyren]

Without any items, a level 20 fighter and a level 1 one will have roughly the same AC, give or take a couple points if the former puts points into DEX.

The first one, however, will have a much higher to-hit, thanks to HD providing BaB, while doing nothing for AC.

So, the attack bonus will scale by both level and items, while it's opponent will largely only scale by items, unless specific classes and feats are chosen. This makes trying to avoid the rocket tag an ever-increasingly difficult treadmill.

Putting aside the practical pointlessness of removing items from any kind of balance discussion - HD might not provide AC but CR definitely does, unless you're running a humanoid-only game - which is again, not particularly useful from a practical standpoint.

[Bohandas]

I have a few main problems with 3e/3.5e

1.) Monster design is too formulaic

To be clear, I am NOT saying that monsters should not have a full array of all stats that player characters have.

What I AM saying is thay those stats shouldn't all be derived from each other. In particular, I feel that HD, base saves, base attack bonus, feats, skill points, and skill cap should all be defined independently of each other. Especially HD and skill points. It makes no sense for a giant to receive skill points purely for being enormous.

2.) Non-Abilities

Non-abilities are a mess. Constructs' and undead's lack of constitution scores seem to be a thing because questi9nable philosophical reasons rather than for any legitimate gamist, simulationist, or narrativist reason. Just because they aren't alive doesn/t mean we don't sometimes need a kludge factor to make some harder or easier to kill, especially in light of the formulaicness mentioned above. Lack of strength scores for incorporeal creatures is also pointlessly philosophical given that incorporeal creatures have many ways to physically move things, most notably ghost touch items. Conversely, it doesn't make sense that no creature can lack a wisdom or charisma score even if they lack all the traits associated with that score. Most mindless creatures presumably don't communicate, or use magic, or have a personality, yet they all need to have charisma scores for some reason

3.) Unnecessary math in ability modifiers

The way ability score modifiers are determined is ridiculously over complicated given that the game would play almost exactly the same if the modifier were simply defined as one half the ability score and all non-opposed DCs were raised by 5. The ONLY difference would be that characters would actually have enough skill points. Skill points are also the biggest obstacle to implementing this, due to complaint #1.

4.) Questionable ability score names and roles

Using strength to determine if a hit connects rarely makes any sense. The idea is only intelligible if a heavy weapon is being wielded against heavy armor.

"Wisdom" seems to just be perception, given which skills it modifies and the fact that that even clerics that are described as being deluded, deranged and/or reckless generally have high wisdom scores

"charisma" is a complete mess of entirely unrelated concepts. It's social skills, but it's also magic, but its also personality, and for some reason it's also an incorporeal creature's strength score. They might as well just rename it to "other"

5.) Breakdown at large and small scales

The game should either be scale invariant or reflect the real limitations of large creatures. As it is it is neither

6.) Order dependence of levelups

Due to some messy handling of skill points, in particular the x4 at first level and the fact that you don;t recalculate if you gain a point of intelligence, you often need to craft high level characters level by level, instead of all at once.

7.) Multiclass XP penalties

These are entirely pointless and to my knowledge rightly ignkred by most groups.

8.) Padded LAs/ECLs

They seem to be double counting with the way they do this. They count each monster hit die as a full effective level by itself, and then add ADDITIONAL levels for the monster's special abilities, even though normally you would get levels and abilities together and the monster may not even have enough special abilities to cover a level equivalent to its hit dice.

9.) Excessive rounding

They really should use the fractional scores variant from Unearthed Arcana. It makes so much more sense.

10.) Clerics are all samey

A cleric of one god is largely the same as a cleric of another god, and domains do not all that much variety

[Elves]

Good post.


"Wisdom" seems to just be perception, given which skills it modifies and the fact that that even clerics that are described as being deluded, deranged and/or reckless generally have high wisdom scores

This is one of the major problems of mental ability scores used as class statistics. They end up restricting and often out of necessity straight-up contradicting the personality of the character. Seems like you really need some sort of independent magic stat.



8.) Padded LAs/ECLs

They seem to be double counting with the way they do this. They count each monster hit die as a full effective level by itself, and then add ADDITIONAL levels for the monster's special abilities, even though normally you would get levels and abilities together and the monster may not even have enough special abilities to cover a level equivalent to its hit dice.
As I understand it, the intent is to be skewed in favor of the PCs -- the "average" opponent is just hit dice, while the PCs also have class features, making an encounter vs an "average" opponent of the same level relatively safe for a PC. More to the point, the HD-only "average" opponent represents a CR baseline that can be adjusted based on whatever additional powers the creature has. If you assume that each HD comes pre-packaged with a certain level of additional power it becomes even more confusing to assign CR.

So I understand their logic on that one. Though yes, clearly the system often exaggerates about what counts as a full +1 CR.

[Necroticplague]

Putting aside the practical pointlessness of removing items from any kind of balance discussion - HD might not provide AC but CR definitely does, unless you're running a humanoid-only game - which is again, not particularly useful from a practical standpoint.

Which means that, as campaigns increase in level, one must accept one of several possibilities, all of which seem undesirable:
1. Magic Christmas tree is inevitable. This flaw ends up papered over by the wealth system, and low wealth high level just fails to function.
2. Completely removing an entire category of encounter types from potential at high levels, this being 'other high-level humanoids'.
3. Accepting the descent into rocket tag.

[Elves]

2. Completely removing an entire category of encounter types from potential at high levels, this being 'other high-level humanoids'.

Having rocket tag under specific circumstances (unarmored humanoid opponents) doesn't mean rocket tag everywhere, and it's what you'd expect from real life.

[NigelWalmsley]

What I AM saying is thay those stats shouldn't all be derived from each other. In particular, I feel that HD, base saves, base attack bonus, feats, skill points, and skill cap should all be defined independently of each other. Especially HD and skill points. It makes no sense for a giant to receive skill points purely for being enormous.

Most of that already is functionally independent. Or practically irrelevant. It doesn't matter what a creature's base attack bonus is, it matters what its to hit bonus is. And that includes enough other stuff that the constraint of using one of the three available BAB progressions doesn't really matter. Similarly, the actual skill cap of a particular creature is largely irrelevant, as creatures that need outsized skill bonuses to work simply get racial bonuses to skills. Ditto for bonus feats.


They really should use the fractional scores variant from Unearthed Arcana. It makes so much more sense.

Strongly disagree. Fractional bonuses are too much additional work for the value they provide. For most characters, it will do nothing, and even when it does something, that effect will usually be a +1 or a +2 that's not worth the extra math to bother with.


10.) Clerics are all samey

I agree that this is a problem, but it seems like the sort of thing that it's unfair to call a "fundamental flaw". You don't really have to change anything for priests of Nerull to be Dread Necromancers, priests of Obad-Hai to be Druids, and priests of Boccob to be Wizards. The association between the Cleric class and actual priests is flavorful.


Magic Christmas tree is inevitable. This flaw ends up papered over by the wealth system, and low wealth high level just fails to function.

I don't think it's fair to present that as having much of anything to do with AC in particular. The system as a whole assumes numbers that require magic items to function. It's not like if you got +level to AC that would magically go away.


Accepting the descent into rocket tag.

I don't think high AC fixes rocket launcher tag. The issue there is that attacks are very lethal, so fights come down to who lands the first successful hit. Making hits land less often doesn't really address that.

[RifleAvenger]

Having rocket tag under specific circumstances (unarmored humanoid opponents) doesn't mean rocket tag everywhere, and it's what you'd expect from real life.

Having played a Pathfinder 1 game with widespread advanced firearms, this is quite true. Esp. in how it changed what sorts of bonuses to AC were valued and the importance of finding good cover.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to an earlier discussion about the value of randomized build aspects, I very much am in the camp of "minimize that." However, while an earlier poster defended it from a mechanical perspective, I want to argue for it from a narrative aspect.

Some degree of systems must be taken into account. I want to control what I'm building in 3e/Pathfinder because tactical mechanics and narrative mechanics are not isolated in these systems. It is not like Lancer (as a recent example), where you can create a character who is an expert hacker in narrative play with no cyberwarfare abilities in combat play (and, perhaps more bizarrely to some, vice-versa). The role I want to play in 3e/PF narrative MUST be reflected in my mechanical abilities.

In that narrative level, there is still plenty of room to distingush a character. I'm currently playing an Occultist Arcanist in a God-Wizard style with the feats and exploits you'd expect (Superior Summoning line, Quick Study, Familiar, improved familiar with UMD). That he was born into a persecuted ethnic minority, that he is a failed cleric who lacked faith, that he secretly is angry at the heavens for only being present on the material when he FORCES them to be, that he conversely fears his celestial summoning is akin to slavery? That is where my pre-game creativity went. His fear, disgust, and lingering respect for the LG church that now calls him heretic? The conflict between wanting to build Good by solving conflict non-violently versus the consequences of negotiating with Evil persons and ideologies? That is where I tried to apply character development in play, not what I pulled out of a box at the GM's whim or that of a d100.

I could have built up an identical character (with a different backstory, motivation, and flaws) and played a distinctly different game. Ensuring that I had the abilities, feats, and items needed for the character to work did not stifle my narrative creativity. Rather, it let me focus on characterization and interacting with the world presented to me. My experience would not be enriched by being forced to be mediocre at my core mechanical concept, while also trying to contextualize unwanted random aspects.

[Elves]

Strongly disagree. Fractional bonuses are too much additional work for the value they provide. For most characters, it will do nothing, and even when it does something, that effect will usually be a +1 or a +2 that's not worth the extra math to bother with.

Fractional bonuses are much easier to calculate. They also mean the class table can be compressed significantly. And they help ease up the "level-by-level" character building issue Bohandas mentioned.

[Aotrs Commander]

Fractional bonuses are much easier to calculate. They also mean the class table can be compressed significantly. And they help ease up the "level-by-level" character building issue Bohandas mentioned.

Some people don't like maths.

Yes, yes, I know.

But they don't.

So if you start putting fractions in, there is a good number of people that will straight just turn off. Let's b honest, you dont NEED the BAB/DSaves columns on the class tables at all, you can summarise it in one line. But as was pointed out on another thread, hell, they never even bothered to tell you the formula for Good/Bad saves anywhere sensible and if you look at nearly everything that says 3/4 BAB in like the monster types table in the MM, it also says "as cleric" or something because otherwise, that's fractions and Fractions Are Maths.



Heck, people assuces Rolemaster of being overly complicatedm but it really isn't, and the matsh involved in actual play is EXACTLY THE SAME A D&D - add a number to a roll - but the difference in being tens and units and not units is enough to make people call it too much - because for some people 37-45 is worse than 4+17. But that's the way it is.

[NigelWalmsley]

Fractional bonuses are much easier to calculate. They also mean the class table can be compressed significantly. And they help ease up the "level-by-level" character building issue Bohandas mentioned.

No they aren't. Adding up a bunch of fractions is harder than adding up a bunch of whole numbers. Not massively harder or anything, but it is harder. And it doesn't particularly help with the level-by-level stuff.

[Quertus]

The role I want to play in 3e/PF narrative MUST be reflected in my mechanical abilities.

So, that was a lot of words, and maybe I didn't really follow most of it, because I didn't see anything in the rest of your text that says "role" to me.

Regardless, what do you mean by "role", and why do you believe you have a right to a particular role?

[Elves]

No they aren't. Adding up a bunch of fractions is harder than adding up a bunch of whole numbers. Not massively harder or anything, but it is harder. And it doesn't particularly help with the level-by-level stuff.

"Medium BAB equals +3/4 per level" takes up less memory than having to remember a custom formula of "Medium BAB means +0, +1, +1, +1, repeat".

It does help slightly with level by level for multiclass chars b/c rather than tracking the formula you just lump the levels and add together.

[Aotrs Commander]

"Medium BAB equals +3/4 per level" takes up less memory than having to remember a custom formula of "Medium BAB means +0, +1, +1, +1, repeat".

For you, maybe (and for me); but I'm afraid you have to recognise that other people just don't Maths Well. I'm lucky, I play with the majority of people who are engineers or technical people, so it's a non-issue, but I have played with people for whom just adding their attack bonus up takes them a moment. Ask a lot of people to add two 3/4s together and they'll come apart, because Maths Is Scary for some people. Genuinely. (And not just young folk, either.)

The best thing you can do in a set of rules is provide the table and footnote it with the formula for them as like thee and me, for whom maths is second nature.

[Zanos]

For you, maybe (and for me); but I'm afraid you have to recognise that other people just don't Maths Well. I'm lucky, I play with the majority of people who are engineers or technical people, so it's a non-issue, but I have played with people for whom just adding their attack bonus up takes them a moment. Ask a lot of people to add two 3/4s together and they'll come apart, because Maths Is Scary for some people. Genuinely. (And not just young folk, either.)

The best thing you can do in a set of rules is provide the table and footnote it with the formula for them as like thee and me, for whom maths is second nature.
I feel like even if you're bad at math summing up 1 bab increase every level but the 1st and every 4th thereafter across multiple classes is a lot harder than just punching x*.75 into a calculator and shaving off the decimal when you're done.

Honestly, I would go as far as to say that if you can't multiply by 3/4th you probably shouldn't be playing 3.5 at all. This is a game that requires trigonometry as a relatively common occurrence.

[Elves]

The best thing you can do in a set of rules is provide the table and footnote it with the formula for them as like thee and me, for whom maths is second nature.

My math knowledge is nil. It's just fact that the fractions are easier to remember and work with than custom formulas. Sure, if it's a mass market game maybe you want something 5 year olds can understand, so put in a chart that shows the whole number values for each BAB progression, or just don't include math higher than your target audience will be comfortable with.

Frankly, the 5 year olds are not going to be analyzing the game anyway, they're there for the pretty pictures and the jeweled covers. I know I was.

[Psyren]

The only way to definitively settle the "table vs. maths" argument is by playtesting both ways with new players and publishing the results. Since the only groups we can be comfortable having done that - WotC and Paizo - consistently use tables rather than formulae, it stands to reason that tables have proven more beneficial to new players, particularly given the tangible costs of page real estate that the former take up compared to the latter.

[RifleAvenger]

So, that was a lot of words, and maybe I didn't really follow most of it, because I didn't see anything in the rest of your text that says "role" to me.

Regardless, what do you mean by "role", Primarily a synonym for "character." Like "this actor played the following role..." The personality, life experience prior to session 1, and capabilities of a given character. That my PC is skilled at arcane conjuration and divination, dislikes killing, is an overly cautious overthinker, has a complicated relationship with the church he was born into, and possesses a few divine-esque powers are all aspects of his "role."

Because crunch and narrative are not disassociated in 3e/PF like they are in some other games, "role" also refers to the mechanical abilities my character possesses. This goes for use in tactical combat (what "role" I provide to the party in combat, e.g. buffer, battlefield control, etc.) and out of combat (I have ranks in diplomacy and sense motive; I have rope trick, stone shape, teleport, fly, etc. in my spellbook; I can summon creatures for skill or exploration tasks the PC's are ill suited for). This means that having control over my role also means control over my starting attributes, my two free spells at level up, and what feats and exploits (or other class feature) I take.


and why do you believe you have a right to a particular role? Because this is a collaborative storytelling game combined with a cooperative tactics and strategy game, and I shouldn't have to earn the right to play a certain character concept (or play craps to get it)? Because I'm going to potentially be playing a character for months to years, and playing a character with randomized elements I don't like isn't a worthwhile use of my time? Because I value displaying my creativity through venues I can control, rather than salvaging something from those I can't?

So long as my character isn't disruptive to the GM's setting or the other PCs, I should be allowed to play the character I want. I should be allowed to do that because it will lead to my maximal enjoyment in play. Given that the PC's traveling with my arcanist are a Sword-Saint Samurai and an Unchained Monk, I wouldn't have objected if the GM asked me to play a less powerful class to proof against intra-party imbalance. I'd have built an Unchained Summoner instead, since that's the next best fit for my character concept. If THAT was still too much, I'd switch to pitching my next most preferred character concept, a bard with multiple identities who got her powers through a warlock-esque pact.

Likewise, I expect that as much as I have to fit my character into the GM's setting, they should also be open to inserting hooks and themes that play along with my intended character (I want my arcanist to grapple with the fundamental natures of Good and Evil, so put in some moral quandaries and involve the cosmic scale, even if only tangentially). This is exactly the mindset I approach gamemastering with. Even when participating in or running oneshots with pregens, I either ask the GM if I can work with them to create a custom character or if ask my players if any of them would be interested in doing so.

Once the game starts, all sorts of bad things can happen to my character at GM discretion, but a few things aside (mind control, coma, death) I'm still in command of how I respond to adversity and what capabilities I have to respond to it with. I am in control of who my character is and what they can do (tempered by session 0 discussion), not dice or GM fiat. I can sway the odds by having control over my role and my build, ensuring that I am routinely successful at the things my character is supposed to be good at, and routinely unsuccessful at the things they're supposed to be bad at (I got grappled by a lvl 1 young commoner when I was lvl 7). I do this not because I want to "beat" the game, but because I want the character I envisioned to actually be reflected in the story unfolding on the tabletop.

tl;dr Life if too short to be spent doing things I don't enjoy. I'd walk from any table that insisted random chance should determine who I am, rather than just if I succeed or fail.

[ExLibrisMortis]

The only way to definitively settle the "table vs. maths" argument is by playtesting both ways with new players and publishing the results. Since the only groups we can be comfortable having done that - WotC and Paizo - consistently use tables rather than formulae, it stands to reason that tables have proven more beneficial to new players, particularly given the tangible costs of page real estate that the former take up compared to the latter.
Of course, WotC also assumes that every character is single-classed about half the time, so...

I mean, I agree with you, the tables are there for user-friendliness. I'm just not entirely sure I'd trust 3.5-era WotC to think quite that deeply about their decisions. After all, other parts of the game aren't laid out particularly innumarate-friendly (say, multiplier stacking when Power Attacking on a charge). That said, it does look like the ultra-ultra-basic principles of character building were considered interesting enough to write about, and even the height of optimization--look at the multiclass advancement articles you get in Dragon, for example. Complete waste of time, but they kept printing them.

5e has tables including proficiency bonuses, which is a bit odd, since proficiency doesn't even depend on class level. It really does suggest that it's included for players who've only read the bits on their class, and nothing else. Since 5e is a much more recent (and arguably more widely successful) product, I generally trust 5e to be more solidly supported by market research. So I guess it's done for a reason...

[NigelWalmsley]

"Medium BAB equals +3/4 per level" takes up less memory than having to remember a custom formula of "Medium BAB means +0, +1, +1, +1, repeat".

You don't need to remember anything. The only time your BAB progression matters is when advancing or building a character, and you do that with books at hand. You can just look at the tables for whatever classes you are and add the numbers together.

[Zanos]

The only way to definitively settle the "table vs. maths" argument is by playtesting both ways with new players and publishing the results. Since the only groups we can be comfortable having done that - WotC and Paizo - consistently use tables rather than formulae, it stands to reason that tables have proven more beneficial to new players, particularly given the tangible costs of page real estate that the former take up compared to the latter.
As above, WotC is notorious both for low level and single classed gameplay. Certainly it's much easier to look up your scaling statistics in a table when your character is single classed and low level.

Of course, nothing prevents you from having both. Fractional BAB/Saves for a single class are the same as the table.

[loky1109]

but what do you view as the fundamental flaws and shortcomings of the D&D 3e game?

LA. It turned out to be a bomb with a clockwork.

UPD: It isn't fundamental, but realization. PrClasses. You can't be Wisard of Order of whatever since first level.

UPD2: It is fundamental! d20 as main dice check. To random at low levels.

[Psyren]

As above, WotC is notorious both for low level and single classed gameplay. Certainly it's much easier to look up your scaling statistics in a table when your character is single classed and low level.

Of course, nothing prevents you from having both. Fractional BAB/Saves for a single class are the same as the table.

As Nigel mentioned, the only time you need to know this is when leveling your character/updating your sheet, which you do with the relevant tables in front of you in the book. "Look up a number on each class table then add them together" is pretty intuitive, especially since only one of those numbers is changing at a time.

[Elves]

But thinking about the game is a large part of playing it. What about the theorycrafters who have to juggle different builds in their heads and the poor DM who has to make several unique characters per session?

[Psyren]

But thinking about the game is a large part of playing it. What about the theorycrafters who have to juggle different builds in their heads and the poor DM who has to make several unique characters per session?

Not sure I understand the question. Those folks have access to class tables too, how would putting formulae in their heads alongside all the other stuff they're juggling make their lives easier instead of harder?

[Zaq]

Can I just say that I think save-or-lose is one of the worst mechanics ever? (Okay, that's a bit hyperbolic, but still, I hate save-or-lose.) Save-or-die is, of course, the worst example, but "you stood somewhere in the mind flayer's cone, now roll a single d20 to determine if you get to have literally any fun at all with your character for the rest of the afternoon" is absolute cringe. On BOTH sides of the screen.

[NigelWalmsley]

I think the issue is more save-or-lose in conjunction with relatively complex and time-consuming combat. No one has an issue with e.g. unlocking a door taking only a single die roll to resolve, because win or lose that encounter is over in maybe a minute of real time. The problem is when a short encounter can take 45 minutes to resolve, but one player can get knocked out in the first round.

Also, you do want some kind of chaff-clearing mechanic. Something like Holy Word, where you spend a single action to blow up most of the enemy mooks, is good.

[Ignimortis]

Can I just say that I think save-or-lose is one of the worst mechanics ever? (Okay, that's a bit hyperbolic, but still, I hate save-or-lose.) Save-or-die is, of course, the worst example, but "you stood somewhere in the mind flayer's cone, now roll a single d20 to determine if you get to have literally any fun at all with your character for the rest of the afternoon" is absolute cringe. On BOTH sides of the screen.

I still remember how I had to almost solo an encounter designed for three heavy hitters but one slaad (or something else) just Fear'd everyone and I was the only one who made the save. Guys literally had to sit an hour and watch things unfold like spectators instead of actors. We still won, but it was pretty bad. 5e and PF2e both had alright ideas about fixing that, with either "reroll your save each round" or "you only suffer really debilitating effects on a critical failure".

[Bohandas]

I think the issue is more save-or-lose in conjunction with relatively complex and time-consuming combat.

Compounded by the fact that everyone only plays one character unless they're a conjurer or necromancer

[Telok]

I still remember how I had to almost solo an encounter designed for three heavy hitters but one slaad (or something else) just Fear'd everyone and I was the only one who made the save. Guys literally had to sit an hour and watch things unfold like spectators instead of actors. We still won, but it was pretty bad. 5e and PF2e both had alright ideas about fixing that, with either "reroll your save each round" or "you only suffer really debilitating effects on a critical failure".

Part of my issue with the way it's been done in those games is that it seems to have the effect of making control/debuff spells so weak and/or unreliable that hit point damage becomes the only viable option. That turns every caster into dps, party buffer, or summoner. And all those are, again, more hit point damage (with a side of modest hit point damage mitigation I suppose).

I wonder if it might not be better, instead of hard effects like 'die', 'paralyze', 'flee', you set the control spells to just seriously penalize or prevent certain actions. Run a fear spell as more like "victim may not approach source, -50% all rolls when in short range of source, -25% all rolls when in medium line of sight range of source", still a very serious debuff but doesn't kick a player out of the game untill it wears off. You can keep the simplicity of the single straight saving throw roll, still keep the affected PC engaged, and have the effect strong enough to compare favorably against straight damage options.

In the case of things like paralysis it would of course be better if characters all had abilities other than "attack to do damage" that were relevant in combat. Then you could have a paralysis effect that cut off effective attacks & most movement but still allowed a roll-every-round check for the paralyzed to speak (taunt, encourage, perception check and communicate, etc.), crawl a very short distance, have a chance to use a defense, just have something relevant to do even if it's minor.

I suppose this could be a fundamental flaw, although probably more in class design than in the base system: Characters who can only effectively engage encounters through a single action type.

When the fighter (really any class), unless intentionally built to have extra abilities by a char-op savvy person, can only effectively engage encounters by attacking things for hit point damage, then it drags the system towards all of the encounters being about hit point damage and nothing else. When all encounters are based only on hit point damage any non-hit point effects become over powered because they bypass hit points and thus obsolete the one dimensional class/characters.

[ExLibrisMortis]

Part of my issue with the way it's been done in those games is that it seems to have the effect of making control/debuff spells so weak and/or unreliable that hit point damage becomes the only viable option. That turns every caster into dps, party buffer, or summoner. And all those are, again, more hit point damage (with a side of modest hit point damage mitigation I suppose).

I wonder if it might not be better, instead of hard effects like 'die', 'paralyze', 'flee', you set the control spells to just seriously penalize or prevent certain actions. Run a fear spell as more like "victim may not approach source, -50% all rolls when in short range of source, -25% all rolls when in medium line of sight range of source", still a very serious debuff but doesn't kick a player out of the game untill it wears off. You can keep the simplicity of the single straight saving throw roll, still keep the affected PC engaged, and have the effect strong enough to compare favorably against straight damage options.
Tome of Battle has some maneuvers that remove a target's action on success (move or standard). That's not a bad baseline for effects like Stun and Daze.

[Aotrs Commander]

Part of my issue with the way it's been done in those games is that it seems to have the effect of making control/debuff spells so weak and/or unreliable that hit point damage becomes the only viable option. That turns every caster into dps, party buffer, or summoner. And all those are, again, more hit point damage (with a side of modest hit point damage mitigation I suppose).

I wonder if it might not be better, instead of hard effects like 'die', 'paralyze', 'flee', you set the control spells to just seriously penalize or prevent certain actions. Run a fear spell as more like "victim may not approach source, -50% all rolls when in short range of source, -25% all rolls when in medium line of sight range of source", still a very serious debuff but doesn't kick a player out of the game untill it wears off. You can keep the simplicity of the single straight saving throw roll, still keep the affected PC engaged, and have the effect strong enough to compare favorably against straight damage options.

In the case of things like paralysis it would of course be better if characters all had abilities other than "attack to do damage" that were relevant in combat. Then you could have a paralysis effect that cut off effective attacks & most movement but still allowed a roll-every-round check for the paralyzed to speak (taunt, encourage, perception check and communicate, etc.), crawl a very short distance, have a chance to use a defense, just have something relevant to do even if it's minor.

I suppose this could be a fundamental flaw, although probably more in class design than in the base system: Characters who can only effectively engage encounters through a single action type.

When the fighter (really any class), unless intentionally built to have extra abilities by a char-op savvy person, can only effectively engage encounters by attacking things for hit point damage, then it drags the system towards all of the encounters being about hit point damage and nothing else. When all encounters are based only on hit point damage any non-hit point effects become over powered because they bypass hit points and thus obsolete the one dimensional class/characters.


I haven't found save-or-suck to be a problem worth completely re-writing the system for, but certainly on the DM's side of the screen, for important monsters, I created a template that does functionally change a failed save-or-suck into hit-point damage (the same template effectively increments their hit points, and it requires a full block to be expended when that kicks in); on the vrs player side, it can be an issue, though. (But this is one reason whay Dispel Magic is so absolutely critical.) That said, with the large parties I run for and the general lasting of combat for 2-3 rounds at most generally, it tends not to take anyone out for very long in real time. (When the virus apocalypse is not around, we play about two hours every week, and four day session per year, which are often not nearly so combat-orientated.)

I think PF1 went part of the way. I liked the way it changed a lot of instant-death spells to "large hit point damage;" (for 3.A I raised some of them even higher). From the sound of PF2 and what I've seen of 5E, they might have nerfed them too far in some regards. Save every round against Hold Person is great if you happen to be a PC, but makes the spell almost useless used against an enemy as a PC. And I think that's the big danger, you hit the point when you have Final Fantasy Death Syndrome, where anything worth using it on is immune to it. (You can argue - perhaps no unreasonably - that my template above somewhat does this, though the intention was to make save-or-lose into a finisher on boss fights, and as far as PV vrs boss goes, that dynamic seems to work).

Perhaps a solution might be along the lines is to make the worse (action denying) statuses follow a pattern a bit like fatigue seems to in 5E (my experience with it is solely from listening to D&D podcasts). Have the first one instance inflict a sharp penalty, and the second/third be the point it kicks in properly. I dunno, 1 point of Paralysation reduces you to, like basically Staggered with a Dex penalty, and the second actualyl paraluses you. (You probably wouldn't need more than two, I feel, generally).



Alternatively, you might approach it from the other direction and do for the PCs what I do for the monsters. Allow them some finite (daily?) resource that lets them functionally "Iron Heart Surge" away Bad Status effects - probably best, like with my definant template, either turn it into hit point damage (say 50% max hits) or functional negative levels1. The advantage of this method is that it would be easier to playtest, since you could just slap it on top of the existsing system and see how it pans out.

(Actually, now I think about it, I HAVE already implemented this for Fighters of 8th level or higher as an actual class feature, so maybe I'll hold off adding anything to 3.Aotrs on those lines until I've actually had chance to play it at some point, seemingly in the far distant future...)



You could even do it like a Fate point system (vis a vis Warhammer FRP), where the points do not replenish, but come along with quest rewards or levels or something; the frequency of being sucessfully save-or-sucked as a PC is probably low enough that that kind of resource would probably work, plus it also makes it a decision.

(Like you frequently have to do with Rolemaster, if you want the party to survive very long without fudging criticals!)




1In very very brief, my defiant template, each application allows a boss one extra tank of max hit points (which they can expend if they get save-or-sucked or as an action to functionally ironheart surge away something they don't like) and one save reroll, which upon use, grants them what is functionally a negative level. A PC version would have to be sharply toned down.

[Telok]

You could even do it like a Fate point system (vis a vis Warhammer FRP), where the points do not replenish, but come along with quest rewards or levels or something; the frequency of being sucessfully save-or-sucked as a PC is probably low enough that that kind of resource would probably work, plus it also makes it a decision.

I think I did something sort of similar long ago in a 3.5 game I ran. I made a piety system tied to the dieties. Each god got a list of likes and dislikes, each pc had a piety score. They got piety for doing things their god liked and for leveling up. They could spend piety to not die, pray for a miracle (literally get a spell effect at CL 24 off one of that god's domain lists), or... something else. I'd have to dig out old files to check.

I recall the costs as: Not dying being your level + how negative your hp were or how much you failed the save by. Pray for spell being spell level squared, minimum 5. And -3 for each thing the god disliked, roll % if you were below zero for a retribution.

Getting piety was: Gain your level in piety after each level up. +1 piety for every 2000gp of magic item sacrificed on an altar (trash magic items were provided). And various +1s based on what the god liked.

Of course there was a lol-random god that didn't use piety and you just rolled on a table about twice every session.

[vasilidor]

Not sure I understand the question. Those folks have access to class tables too, how would putting formulae in their heads alongside all the other stuff they're juggling make their lives easier instead of harder?

it may not help everyone, but that has helped me. i have had to do npc's on the fly before, and knowing a couple of formula has helped me get it done faster, along with having an item benchmarks (a martial npc should have a minimum + on their weapon of level/4 for instance; add specials for tastes). I also have a few quick list for spells for spell casters.

[Quertus]

Compounded by the fact that everyone only plays one character unless they're a conjurer or necromancer

"One character", coupled with "able to be taken out for an extended time", let alone "easily taken out on a single roll at the beginning" is bad. I prefer to address the "single character" aspect of the problem, personally.

Letting players run NPCs or even the enemies can also alleviate engagement issues inherent in systems with "disengaging" rules.


Part of my issue with the way it's been done in those games is that it seems to have the effect of making control/debuff spells so weak and/or unreliable that hit point damage becomes the only viable option. That turns every caster into dps, party buffer, or summoner. And all those are, again, more hit point damage (with a side of modest hit point damage mitigation I suppose).

Yeah, I'm not a fan of such limited options.


I wonder if it might not be better, instead of hard effects like 'die', 'paralyze', 'flee', you set the control spells to just seriously penalize or prevent certain actions. Run a fear spell as more like "victim may not approach source, -50% all rolls when in short range of source, -25% all rolls when in medium line of sight range of source", still a very serious debuff but doesn't kick a player out of the game untill it wears off. You can keep the simplicity of the single straight saving throw roll, still keep the affected PC engaged, and have the effect strong enough to compare favorably against straight damage options.


In the case of things like paralysis it would of course be better if characters all had abilities other than "attack to do damage" that were relevant in combat. Then you could have a paralysis effect that cut off effective attacks & most movement but still allowed a roll-every-round check for the paralyzed to speak (taunt, encourage, perception check and communicate, etc.), crawl a very short distance, have a chance to use a defense, just have something relevant to do even if it's minor.

I think that the topic of "engagement" could easily be its own thread.

Once upon a time, I had a Cleric cast Chant. Every round, I had to spend my turn maintaining the buff spell, or it ended.

Despite the fact that my character remained conscious until nearly the end of the fight, I really wasn't terribly engaged (and this despite coming up with a new verse to Chant every round).

On the other hand, I can stay engaged while playing a Sentient Potted Plant.

I'm not sure if all players would look at a "pity action" any better than they do "pity artifacts"

I think it's better to just remove them cleanly. And solve the problem of how to keep the *player* engaged when the *character* is down for the count.

Also, I think it's better to keep the ability to 1-shot epic monsters in the game - there's no issues if the GM losing engagement when they run out of things to run, and it makes for an awesome story when you take down something epic with your opener!

I mean, once upon a time, the party engaged the Dragon Lords in X one-on-one fights. The party not only won every match, they won every match with their opening move! And without killing a single Dragon!

Imagine just how cowled the spectators (and Dragons) were by that demonstration of power (and luck). You can't have that when you remove the possibility of such occurring.

[Aotrs Commander]

I think that the topic of "engagement" could easily be its own thread.

Once upon a time, I had a Cleric cast Chant. Every round, I had to spend my turn maintaining the buff spell, or it ended.

Despite the fact that my character remained conscious until nearly the end of the fight, I really wasn't terribly engaged (and this despite coming up with a new verse to Chant every round).

This is one of the problem with a lot of the weaker classes, such as as the default Marshal or Divine Mind in particular in 3.5. They look like they have class features, but when your only real class feature is "has a passive aura," it's not very fun to play.

I struggled for literal YEARS to find a way to make a homebrew priest class work (basically, a not-spell-using cleric, c.f. Friar Tuck sort of character), because aside from making it a skill monkey and giving it some auras, it didn't really DO anything. (In the end, I finally got somewhere when I turned it into an archtype of PF's Warpriest.)

[NigelWalmsley]

The Marshal could really use some battle commands or something. I keep meaning to write up a fix that does that.

[Elves]

You could check this out: http://minmaxforum.com/index.php?topic=13687.msg236210#msg236210

[Aotrs Commander]

The Marshal could really use some battle commands or something. I keep meaning to write up a fix that does that.

I've been using the Sublime Marshal (initiator class, original from the WotC boards) for years now, myself. (Whether you can still find that about is a good question.)

[Azuresun]

The big problem with 3e I found was that it's essentially three games in one--gritty fantasy at low levels, a techno-thriller at mid levels and superheroes at high levels. There haven't been many fictional settings that can cover such a wide range of power levels over a single story without any problems. There are a lot of things that are cool, but which slump in value because they simply don't scale. For all that it's meant to be the "generic fantasy game", it really pushed a highly unique experience that made it very hard to customise.

Even worse, the progression of characters is marked by more and more abilities (mainly spells) that make particular challenges irrelevant, so the types of interesting challenge a party can face decrease, replaced with "I cast....". Fly, Teleport, Zone of Truth, Scry, Detect Thoughts, Plane Shift, and good old "I have +30 to this skill"....the higher level you get, the harder it becomes to challenge characters beyond arbitrarily declaring their abilities stop working, never mind building a coherent adventure.

Second, the existence of too many "immune" defences--Death Ward, Mind Blank, creature types like Undead or Construct coming with a laundry list of immunities, etc. This had an insidious effect where it was okay to make special abilities overpowered because you could easily become immune to them, so the immunities became even more necessary. One of the best things that 5e did was making it okay to fail a save.

A third core issue is "HD Classes" for monsters. I can see why you'd want to standardise everything, but it leads to a lot of knock-on problems. Creature types having universal traits lead to oddities like zombies and vampires being immune to critical hits (even though they're both well-known for having a weak spot) or made it hard to do concepts like a warrior fey or an intelligent ooze without essentially ignoring the system entirely. Creatures either having too many skill points and feats or too few (and having to patch that lack with big racial bonuses) simply because the HD that gives them their toughness also makes the universally better at everything.

[Elves]

The first one I think is a strength, not a bad thing. The fantasy genre is huge in scope and the game should be able to do different power levels. You can always pick the level you want your game to be at. Although I think formalizing these different levels of power more, the way 4e did with its three tiers, and locking specific capabilities into each tier would be good.

The second point, completely agreed, at high levels it becomes too much a game of immunities and dispels to get rid of those immunities. As you point out this is linked to the prevalence of SOD effects, with the immunities becoming a defacto cushion to the SODs that need to be dispelled first.

Agreed on #3. I think 4e did it right with the link between monsters of similar types simply being similar abilities and type/subtype benefits, rather than a standardized mechanical chassis.

[Quertus]

A third core issue is "HD Classes" for monsters. I can see why you'd want to standardise everything, but it leads to a lot of knock-on problems. Creature types having universal traits lead to oddities like zombies and vampires being immune to critical hits (even though they're both well-known for having a weak spot) or made it hard to do concepts like a warrior fey or an intelligent ooze without essentially ignoring the system entirely. Creatures either having too many skill points and feats or too few (and having to patch that lack with big racial bonuses) simply because the HD that gives them their toughness also makes the universally better at everything.

I disagree on all 3 counts, but I especially want to call out this one.

First off, D&D zombies and vampire have never had such weaknesses as you describe. Adding them in would have felt… strange. Like ray guns and space ships and robots and psychic powers strange… oh, wait, D&D already has those.

Second, if someone really wanted to put non-D&D zombies into D&D, specific trumps general. So the new creatures entry "movie zombies" could be super vulnerable to crits *and* be undead.

The application of intelligence requires identifiable patterns. In that regard, standardizing creature types was one of the best things 3e did.

The feats and skill points? I think you're onto something, but I think you're barking up the wrong tree. I think that, if there's a problem here, the fundamental flaw isn't the "HD classes for monsters", it's more fundamental than that: it's the entire skill and feat system being tied to HD in the first place.

Which, granted, could easily look like what you said. But it could also look completely different.

Suppose, for example, skills were treated the same way Lamentations of the Flame Princess treats attack bonus: only certain classes get to advance it. So, at first level / 1st monster HD, everyone gets some skill points / some set max rank. And only certain "skillful" classes / races ever change that. Heck, that could be a selling point on certain prestige classes, that they give you bonuses to certain skills / let you break those skills limits. Imagine if "Sage" were the only way to get above +X on knowledge skills. Suddenly, being a "Sage" actually *means something*. (Well, maybe not the *only* way - "contemplative Druids" could "limit break" Knowledge: Nature, "Grand Explorer" could limit break Knowledge: Geography & Planes, etc)

[Zanos]

I disagree on all 3 counts, but I especially want to call out this one.

First off, D&D zombies and vampire have never had such weaknesses as you describe. Adding them in would have felt… strange. Like ray guns and space ships and robots and psychic powers strange… oh, wait, D&D already has those.
Vampires are killed by decapitation and staking, so it's weird that they're completely immune to crits. Clearly their head is physically important to their survival. That said that's easily solvable by just giving Vampires a special quality that overrides the regular undead trait that gives them fortification instead.

Agreed on zombies, though. The rules and lore are pretty explicit that nearly all other types of undead do not have parts that are required for functionality beyond physical locomotion. Severing a zombie or skeletons or lichs head barely inconveniences it.

[Kyutaru]

The severe restrictions on martial abilities.

Caster feat requirements: Must be able to breathe and cast spells of a certain level

Martial feat requirements: Must have Dodge, Mobility, 15+ Strength, born on a Saturday, and be a Dwarf. Also can only be used during combat if the moon is full and the enemy is smaller than a house cat.

[Telok]

Having considered things I think the base mechanical system is ok.

The issues are the feats, spells, classes, creature types, and +x skill items. It's not a problem that they exist, it's just that the current implementations are... almost random. Actually they aren't random, it's more like they were all written by different people who didn't get to talk to each other and played very different games.

Like the person who wrote the fighter class played in a game that ran like the old Conan books. Conan never woke up one morning and got world shaping powers, he just got older, tougher, slightly more skilled, etc. Where the person who wrote the druid played something more like marvel super heros in D&D-land. Wake up one morning and suddenly you can cause tornados and have a giant tiger sidekick? Perfectly normal.

The creature types, as written, are a bit too broad. An undead type or construct type is fine, they just have a bit too much stuff in them. Probably about half the immunities and powers should be in templates. That way you'd have a construct type with 4 or 5 things, then templates for golems, clockworks, animated objects, other stuff. Those templates would have more specific abilities and immunities. So you could have clockworks able to be crit, golems crit immune, and the animated objects not having darkvision for no reason except 'type'.

The skill items, magic and non, are the trick to breaking the skills. That goes double for spells. Speaking of spells, when you can see that one class gets piles of feats and another gets piles of spells... you'd think that people would aim for some sort of equality or balance. But again it's like the martial feat writers were in some gritty survival campaign while the caster feat writers were in a fantasy supers game.

Tldr: I think it wasn't the system mechanics. It was that the content writers were playing different games wirh different power levels and writing for those.

[RexDart]

Vampires are killed by decapitation and staking, so it's weird that they're completely immune to crits. Clearly their head is physically important to their survival. That said that's easily solvable by just giving Vampires a special quality that overrides the regular undead trait that gives them fortification instead.

Agreed on zombies, though. The rules and lore are pretty explicit that nearly all other types of undead do not have parts that are required for functionality beyond physical locomotion. Severing a zombie or skeletons or lichs head barely inconveniences it.

Vampiric immunity to crits might also be interpreted as some selective partial use of the "turn to mist" power. I think Marvel Comics Dracula may have used such a trick at some point. He definitely used the "partial turn to mist" trick to fool Doctor Strange into thinking he had been destroyed once (by turning all of himself except the bones to mist.)

(And I think Marvel Dracula is a far better model for D&D than Stoker Dracula, folkloric vampires, or pretty much any other variant, but that may be just me....)

[Edea]

IMO, There are two:

1) WAY TOO MANY FREAKIN' SPLATS. The release schedule for 3e was the stuff of nightmares from a QA perspective. There is no way all of those different content creators were on the same page at all times, leading to acid trips like Tome of Magic and Complete Psionic, along with turning chargen into a statistics midterm.

2) Monte and Skip having had a raging, perpetual and unapologetically exposed erection for Vancian casting (whether they still have it's not relevant; the damage was done). Even the Sorcerer cheesed Skip off, much less anything further deviating from Jack-sama's glorious vision of magical perfection, while Monte's the number-one reason early-era 3e martials don't have any toys.

Also IMO, Tier 3 is the sweet-spot class-wise for D&D 3.5. If all the players in the game are at Tier 3 and just use core + the relevant books where their Tier 3 classes are found, it works...OK-ish. Anything below Tier 3 is boring as the Gray Wastes to play (and/or ineffective), and Tier 1s are bananas. Tier 2s are pushing it, but unfortunately most of the healing magic is found in Tier 1, so Favored Soul probably needs to at least be considered. If you're homebrewing for 3.5, aim for Tier 3.

[NigelWalmsley]

Vampires are killed by decapitation and staking, so it's weird that they're completely immune to crits. Clearly their head is physically important to their survival. That said that's easily solvable by just giving Vampires a special quality that overrides the regular undead trait that gives them fortification instead.

It seems much simpler to just have "immune to crits" be a tag that some things have than trying to set up an inheritance structure that goes "normally you're vulnerable, but you're undead so you're not, but you're a vampire so you are". The less layers of things you have overriding each other the better.


The creature types, as written, are a bit too broad. An undead type or construct type is fine, they just have a bit too much stuff in them. Probably about half the immunities and powers should be in templates.

Frankly I'm not sure you need the base type at all. I can't think of any particular ability I'd want everything that's a construct to be vulnerable or immune to, except maybe abilities that are functionally "construct bane", and you don't need the Construct type to do anything for that to work.


(And I think Marvel Dracula is a far better model for D&D than Stoker Dracula, folkloric vampires, or pretty much any other variant, but that may be just me....)

D&D is a kitchen sink fantasy game, it really shouldn't be working off a single type of Vampire. There are a lot of vampire myths out there (look up "Penanggalan" sometime), and D&D does itself a disservice by trying to stick to the "vaguely European aristocrat" mold.


1) WAY TOO MANY FREAKIN' SPLATS. The release schedule for 3e was the stuff of nightmares from a QA perspective. There is no way all of those different content creators were on the same page at all times, leading to acid trips like Tome of Magic and Complete Psionic, along with turning chargen into a statistics midterm.

The reason people weren't on the same page is because there wasn't an agreed-upon page for them to be on. It's not nearly as hard as people think to balance things (also there's not actually that much stuff in the late-period 3e books), D&D just didn't have any kind of balance philosophy or testing.


If you're homebrewing for 3.5, aim for Tier 3.

Advice like this fundamentally misunderstands what the Tiers are trying to do. The Tiers are descriptive, not prescriptive. They are trying to categorize a dramatically unbalanced game into a usable number of categories. Trying to back-map that to "what should classes do" is an exercise in foolishness. There's no particular tier that is the "best one" from a balance standpoint, because they are all fundamentally not balanced. T3 has merits, certainly (almost all the "cool resource management" classes are T3), but it also has some gaping flaws (basically none of the T3 classes get the kind of utility or plot-advancing powers T1 characters do). If you want to make something new, you should measure your progress by something that is designed to do that, not try to ape a system that happens to be popular for a largely unrelated purpose.

[Zanos]

It seems much simpler to just have "immune to crits" be a tag that some things have than trying to set up an inheritance structure that goes "normally you're vulnerable, but you're undead so you're not, but you're a vampire so you are". The less layers of things you have overriding each other the better.
I disagree. While you might have a point in general, the undead(and construct, and plant) types have saved me a lot of headaches of figuring out whether or not a creature is vulnerable to something. 3.5 specifically has a lot of effects that just do not apply to these creatures types, and packaging a bunch of stuff into an 'undead' type and applying that is a lot easier than 'manually' having every writer remember the laundry list of things that a dead creature is not supposed to be harmed by. Now, you can argue that some immunities don't belong in that type, but it's definitely useful to just be able to say 'what are undead immune to again? oh yeah it's written right over here for me.'

5e went with the 'just apply tags to every individual monster' method, and now we have skeletons that can be stunned, petrified, paralyzed, knocked unconscious, charmed and need food, water, and sleep.

One alternative I have seen that I think is more functional is to strip most of the mechanics out of the creature type and apply more of them to subtypes, which gets you the advantage of having logical immunity 'pools' that can be applied to anything. So you might have a 'lifeless' subtype that most constructs and undead get, a 'mindless' subtype that golems and skeletons/zombies get, etc. 3.5 actually does some of this with racial subtypes that control a lot of features, mostly for outsiders.

[Elves]

I agree and said this above. Subtypes and tags are better than general types that define a monster's whole chassis.

Do you think it's better to keep subtypes ("angel") different from keywords ("mindless", "nonliving", etc) or roll them together into one thing?

[Edea]

Probably roll them together, if all they're used for is to indicate differentiated creature qualities.

[NigelWalmsley]

One alternative I have seen that I think is more functional is to strip most of the mechanics out of the creature type and apply more of them to subtypes, which gets you the advantage of having logical immunity 'pools' that can be applied to anything. So you might have a 'lifeless' subtype that most constructs and undead get, a 'mindless' subtype that golems and skeletons/zombies get, etc. 3.5 actually does some of this with racial subtypes that control a lot of features, mostly for outsiders.

Yes, that would be what I would consider the ideal system. Just because you don't have an "undead" tag or a "construct" tag doesn't mean you can't have a "not actually alive" tag (no need to eat/sleep/breathe, immune to poison/disease, etc) or a "no/irrelevant internal organs" tag (immune to crits/sneak attack). But bundling it at the type level is generally not good, except for things that specifically key off the type (e.g. turn undead). Otherwise, you end up with the behaviors around Vampires either being wrong, or awkwardly verbose.

[Psyren]

The reason people weren't on the same page is because there wasn't an agreed-upon page for them to be on. It's not nearly as hard as people think to balance things (also there's not actually that much stuff in the late-period 3e books), D&D just didn't have any kind of balance philosophy or testing.


Agreed. If you add up Core line, Campaign Setting, Chronicles, Gazetteers and the like, over its lifetime PF1 has put out at least as much crunch as 3.5 if not more. Some of it truly did slip through the development cracks to end up poorly balanced in both directions (looking at you, Sacred Geometry and Kineticist) but they ended up with far fewer snafus than 3.5 did overall because they had the benefit of working off of a unified style sheet.

[Morphic tide]

The severe restrictions on martial abilities.

Caster feat requirements: Must be able to breathe and cast spells of a certain level

Martial feat requirements: Must have Dodge, Mobility, 15+ Strength, born on a Saturday, and be a Dwarf. Also can only be used during combat if the moon is full and the enemy is smaller than a house cat.
This is a pretty major thing to me, as there are a ton of things that Martials get which require feats to counteract innate downsides to, while spellcasters have quite literally no such thing. No subset of magic has some crippling flaw in the basic spells that you need a feat to get around, nothing about how casting a spell works horrifically screws you if you're in the wrong place doing it for a feat to work around, most of their basic rules are handled by yet more spells or by class feature differences, yet for playing a Martial character, all the things any character can do demand feats to stop eating Attacks of Opportunity or be allowed to do it alongside actually doing damage.

I'd say that all the stuff casters got over the TSR days would be fine if all those advantages were feat-hogs. "Fast Casting" as a prerequisite to the outright Quickened Spell turning off the Initiative delay on spellcasting, for instance, while the Concentration check is basically unwinnable without Combat Casting, even as a Cleric. Could have a lot more Focus Components in spells as a general cost metric, with only a few theme-sorted Material Components for typically cast spells, while the Weird Stuff gets confined to big plot magic. Having spell acquisition be an involved assumption would mean the Weird Stuff components go with the time spent to get the spell to pull off the plot bypass.


Having considered things I think the base mechanical system is ok.

The issues are the feats, spells, classes, creature types, and +x skill items. It's not a problem that they exist, it's just that the current implementations are... almost random. Actually they aren't random, it's more like they were all written by different people who didn't get to talk to each other and played very different games.

Like the person who wrote the fighter class played in a game that ran like the old Conan books. Conan never woke up one morning and got world shaping powers, he just got older, tougher, slightly more skilled, etc. Where the person who wrote the druid played something more like marvel super heros in D&D-land. Wake up one morning and suddenly you can cause tornados and have a giant tiger sidekick? Perfectly normal.
Actually, it had to do with WotC not being a pack of grognards like TSR's dev team, so they didn't have any real experience with the sort of mind-numbing tedium of mathematical balancing of average game states. AD&D was generally balanced as a modern-style RPG, because all that randomness typically averaged out to a sensible experience, even as the potential peaks proved to so staggeringly hugely stomp campaign settings flat that you end up with Faerun.

And the Grognard-ness showed by the fact that they actually wrote Faerun that way. Being a typical caster is a terrible experience in combat, but the high-end casters can quite genuinely threaten Greater Deities and shrug off a number of ways of trying to smite them. They looked at their mechanics, how those mechanics shaped their campaigns, and wrote in the margins with that experience reflected in the game world.

In comparison, Wizards of the Coast's MTG department has never had a good track record on balance for more than 5 sets, because they end up doing such things as putting a killing "penalty" on equipment that gives an on-death effect, and Mark Rosewater's entire design philosophy is relentlessly abusing the rules of the game, including a doubling addiction, and their D&D issues can be traced to such astonishing nonsense as scimitar duel-wielding Druids being their playtested characters.

Whereas most of the actual breaks of average game experience that happened in the old days stemmed from either geeking out too hard and not thinking through the consequences of extensive programming logic implementation, or because the company head bean counter seat was taken by a lunatic of a woman who decided playtesting was a waste of company time and bought into the Satanic Panic nonsense, from which we still refer to the typical Demon as Tanar'ri.


The creature types, as written, are a bit too broad. An undead type or construct type is fine, they just have a bit too much stuff in them. Probably about half the immunities and powers should be in templates. That way you'd have a construct type with 4 or 5 things, then templates for golems, clockworks, animated objects, other stuff. Those templates would have more specific abilities and immunities. So you could have clockworks able to be crit, golems crit immune, and the animated objects not having darkvision for no reason except 'type'.

The skill items, magic and non, are the trick to breaking the skills. That goes double for spells. Speaking of spells, when you can see that one class gets piles of feats and another gets piles of spells... you'd think that people would aim for some sort of equality or balance. But again it's like the martial feat writers were in some gritty survival campaign while the caster feat writers were in a fantasy supers game.
It'd be subtypes rather than templates, and Elementals actually have a slight bit of this with their saves. There's also the Shapechanging subtype, and the Fire and Cold subtypes, which work in a similar capacity to the suggestion, while you also get the already-mentioned-by-now situation with Outsiders getting a variety of things defined by their subtypes. The big thing is that I think the raw chassis makes sense for Types, because you do have expectations of what an Outsider, Dragon, Undead, Ooze, or other thing does in those terms as "lowest common denominator" properties, and there's that powerful memorization shorthand of X does Y.


Tldr: I think it wasn't the system mechanics. It was that the content writers were playing different games wirh different power levels and writing for those.
More the content writers generally having no idea what they were doing, because WotC is really bad at math. The only times they've well balanced things have been mind-numbingly symmetrical balance, everything falls apart the moment asymmetry arrives. 4e and 5e are pretty well balanced, but everyone's locked to a handful of hand-in-hand progressions, and the moment you step outside those things... Well, Martial/Caster disparity is still completely stupid outside of combat in 5e, they just carried forward the decent balancing done in 4e between resource suites within single classes to keep combat balanced.

[Telok]

Actually, it had to do with WotC not being a pack of grognards like TSR's dev team, so they didn't have any real experience with the sort of mind-numbing tedium of mathematical balancing of average game states.

As a programming gamer one of the things I occasionally waste time with is writing small programs to evaluate some subsystems or combinations in different games. Set up a scenario to check, run it a million times, output some easy to understand results. Which is how you find out things like the DMG population tables result in more ~10th level druids than all the wizards in some nations, or that Starfinder has a combat feat that makes you worse at combat.

[Pinkie Pyro]

A lot of people have been saying a core problem is "magic can do anything"

that isn't actually the problem, IMO. the real problem is that magic is cheap.

like, a fireball literally costs 8 hours of sleep, 1 hour (or 15 minutes partial) prep, 1 round to cast, and a spell slot. it's very, very easy to get a high number of spells per day and therefore be able to answer any problem, and even if you can't, a scroll or magic item fills it in.

I've been experimenting with how to fix it without drastically altering a ton of stuff, And my current working fix is "mana corruption". basically, everyone has a limit on how much magic they can have on themselves at any one time before they start taking penalties to stuff. so a wizard can still prep a ton of spells, have a few high level scrolls, and magic items, but using them all in quick succession is a bad idea.

[Ignimortis]

A lot of people have been saying a core problem is "magic can do anything"

that isn't actually the problem, IMO. the real problem is that magic is cheap.

like, a fireball literally costs 8 hours of sleep, 1 hour (or 15 minutes partial) prep, 1 round to cast, and a spell slot. it's very, very easy to get a high number of spells per day and therefore be able to answer any problem, and even if you can't, a scroll or magic item fills it in.

I've been experimenting with how to fix it without drastically altering a ton of stuff, And my current working fix is "mana corruption". basically, everyone has a limit on how much magic they can have on themselves at any one time before they start taking penalties to stuff. so a wizard can still prep a ton of spells, have a few high level scrolls, and magic items, but using them all in quick succession is a bad idea.

I have never seen "power at a price" applied to D&D magic properly. It's either too weak or too punishing, and it usually doesn't take into account that a caster who just wants to spam Fireball and Lightning Bolt and Cone of Cold is a perfectly fine, even weak, character without any houserules, and yet they seem to take much more hits from those houserules than people who just use one spell to instantly resolve a situation.

The real issue is that Wizards are archmages from level one - perhaps not in power, but in breadth of access to spells. But that's not a fundamental problem of 3e - it's a fundamental problem of any D&D edition that gives prepared casters spells for free, and thus is more closely related to class (i.e. content) design than basic mechanics.

[Batcathat]

The real issue is that Wizards are archmages from level one - perhaps not in power, but in breadth of access to spells. But that's not a fundamental problem of 3e - it's a fundamental problem of any D&D edition that gives prepared casters spells for free, and thus is more closely related to class (i.e. content) design than basic mechanics.

I agree. If I were to try and balance D&D (which I wouldn't do, since I value my sanity) the first thing I'd do would be to force casters to specialize way more. How can a non-caster ever compare when a caster can have spells almost literally for any type of situation ?

[Mordante]

XP for killing I think killing mobs, bosses etc should not provide XP at all. The DM should decide when it's time to ding and no one else. XP for killing is a daft idea.

Alignment limitations, alignment is has much impact on certain classes. Alignment should not be a limitation on what class you want to play

Combat at high levels is boring boring boring. Every player has way too many options and abilities. This draws out combat far too long. You can spend a 5 hours session doing a simple high level battle. When I DM I try to streamline it a lot.

Min/max there is far too much focus on min/maxing. The game sort of expects everyone to min max. Or at the very least really encourages it. This gets in the way of roleplaying.

Too much source material I personally would consider all dragon magazine non-canon since as a DM it would a pain to balance it all if every player would find some obscure article published 30 years ago. Maybe the rules should be in tiers tier 1 being the two DM guide and PHB, at tier 2 you some common books, like class books are added, tier 3 you can add unearthed arcana etc.tier 4 would maybe include dragon magazine. So a DM can say I play a tier 1 , 2 or 3 game and it would be clear to everyone.

To much depended on (certain) magic items. Weak points of classes can be too easily negated with items.

Too many feats that are basically useless are needed for a PrC.

non-casters are too weak.

[Elves]

I agree. If I were to try and balance D&D (which I wouldn't do, since I value my sanity) the first thing I'd do would be to force casters to specialize way more. How can a non-caster ever compare when a caster can have spells almost literally for any type of situation ?

Beguiler/Warmage/Dnecro style classes are often touted as the answer to that but it seems frankly much more sensible to just dramatically limit the wizard's spell choices based on specialization and give them some unique specialization-based class features, making each specialization akin to a subclass.

[Edea]

I actually kinda like how the ardent uses mantles to determine their repertoire. Re-tool them into 'fields' or 'colleges' or whatever for the wizard, make a bunch of them revolving around themes/flavor instead of the overly-generic and badly-populated school system; perhaps certain ones have easier, less potent 'fields'/'colleges' as pre-requisites, kind of like what sort of undergrad classes/major you should take for a given field before pursuing a master's/doctorate/other higher degree.

[Elves]

Limiting it to domain lists seems a little bit too restrictive IMO. You could do something where the player makes prefabricated spell lists that they get to access at certain times...that could be a fun way to do an "emotion" based caster like a sorcerer, have specific "emotional" triggers that grant you access to a certain spell list for a certain amount of time. Obviously you would have to make the "emotional" triggers crunchy and prevent intentional triggering etc, but it could be interesting.

[Batcathat]

Limiting it to domain lists seems a little bit too restrictive IMO. You could do something where the player makes prefabricated spell lists that they get to access at certain times...that could be a fun way to do an "emotion" based caster like a sorcerer, have specific "emotional" triggers that grant you access to a certain spell list for a certain amount of time. Obviously you would have to make the "emotional" triggers crunchy and prevent intentional triggering etc, but it could be interesting.

It's an interesting concept but it seems like it would be begging for metagaming. "Well, I really want to cast fireball tomorrow so I better get really angry tonight".

[Elves]

Yeah, it would have to be mechanical triggers merely fluffed as emotive triggers.

Similar in essence to the automatic stance switching mechanic here (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?614241-VERY-WIP-Juu-Kata-the-Way-of-Smoke-and-Steel).

[NigelWalmsley]

I have never seen "power at a price" applied to D&D magic properly. It's either too weak or too punishing, and it usually doesn't take into account that a caster who just wants to spam Fireball and Lightning Bolt and Cone of Cold is a perfectly fine, even weak, character without any houserules, and yet they seem to take much more hits from those houserules than people who just use one spell to instantly resolve a situation.

Yeah. People keep asking "what if <seeping nerf to magic>" and the answer keeps being "that would massively increase the relative value of spells that are already problematic while crippling characters that cause exactly zero problems", and yet people never learn that sweeping nerfs to magic are not the answer. Maybe try some other solution? Like sweeping buffs to non-magic characters, or targeted nerfs to magic, or literally anything else.


The real issue is that Wizards are archmages from level one - perhaps not in power, but in breadth of access to spells. But that's not a fundamental problem of 3e - it's a fundamental problem of any D&D edition that gives prepared casters spells for free, and thus is more closely related to class (i.e. content) design than basic mechanics.

But the game isn't imbalanced at level one. At 1st level, the Wizard/Cleric/Fighter/Rogue party is balanced quite well. The issue is that casters scale up better than non-casters. The versatility is not actually nearly as big a deal as people think it is. The Beguiler and Dread Necromancer are perfectly competitive with more traditional full casters, suggesting that the problem with martials is that they don't get useful abilities, not that the Wizard can cast both Cloudkill and Cone of Cold.


Beguiler/Warmage/Dnecro style classes are often touted as the answer to that but it seems frankly much more sensible to just dramatically limit the wizard's spell choices based on specialization and give them some unique specialization-based class features, making each specialization akin to a subclass.

That seems like it would be equivalent to writing multiple classes, but more complicated. What happens when you decide that the Warmage should work mechanically differently from the Necromancer (as seems entirely reasonable)? Are you going to hack one class chassis to do Recharge for Evocation and Essentia for Necromancy (or however you decide to make things work).


I agree. If I were to try and balance D&D (which I wouldn't do, since I value my sanity) the first thing I'd do would be to force casters to specialize way more. How can a non-caster ever compare when a caster can have spells almost literally for any type of situation ?

No, the first thing you should do is solve this problem:


non-casters are too weak.

For the life of me, I can't understand why people insist on starting from "casters are too good" when the Monk exists. Like, maybe fix the class that is basically unplayable before you insist on taking away people's toys? Certainly, there are spells that need to be nerfed. But the Wizard is not actually more fundamentally problematic than the average class.

[Batcathat]

For the life of me, I can't understand why people insist on starting from "casters are too good" when the Monk exists. Like, maybe fix the class that is basically unplayable before you insist on taking away people's toys? Certainly, there are spells that need to be nerfed. But the Wizard is not actually more fundamentally problematic than the average class.

Sure, that should be fixed as well. But I would personally prefer to take away at least some of the caster's toys too. My issue with imbalance between classes isn't so much about casters outshining non-casters in combat but the fact that casters can contribute a lot in almost any type of situation, often more than the classes that supposedly specialize at that type of situation. Casters are like Superman, they have super-everything.

I don't want to solve that problem by making every other class super-everything too, different party members should be good at different things (or they could be jack of all trades but if that's the case they should be worse than the specialized people).

[Elves]

Are you going to hack one class chassis to do Recharge for Evocation and Essentia for Necromancy (or however you decide to make things work).

Presumably not. The game system is flexible enough that you could easily center each class around a hyper-specific archetype, and decompose the base wizard into 10 or 20 different classes. But concision is a virtue and if you can have a single mage class with a largely unified spell mechanic but an altered spell list depending on your focus, there's probably no need to go ultra-specific.

I think it's really about approach. Honestly, I had in mind the sort of minimalist meta 5e has gone with where there are only like a dozen classes. Maybe you think it would be better to have a very large number of base classes that each fulfill a very specific archetype, get rid of prestige classes and relegate anything that's too specific to be a base class to feats or similar. That would certainly mean a big change from the classic D&D class lineup, but wouldn't necessarily be bad.

[NigelWalmsley]

Sure, that should be fixed as well. But I would personally prefer to take away at least some of the caster's toys too. My issue with imbalance between classes isn't so much about casters outshining non-casters in combat but the fact that casters can contribute a lot in almost any type of situation, often more than the classes that supposedly specialize at that type of situation. Casters are like Superman, they have super-everything.

Again, I genuinely do not understand how people can look at "some classes can contribute in almost any situation" as a problem with those classes. Is "people can contribute all the time" not the goal? The biggest problem with the Fighter is that there are whole swaths of the game where your options amount to "sit down" and "shut up". Why would we want to enshrine that as an intentional part of class design?


But concision is a virtue and if you can have a single mage class with a largely unified spell mechanic but an altered spell list depending on your focus, there's probably no need to go ultra-specific.

Sure there is. People genuinely like the Dread Necromancers and Beguilers of the world. Those classes are very popular. People want the opportunity to play a Fire Mage that is meaningfully and substantively different from the Ice Mage their friend is playing. Wizard specialists just doesn't cut it, and if you released enough content to come close you'd end up with a class that was bloated well past the point of usefulness.


Honestly, I had in mind the sort of minimalist meta 5e has gone with where there are only like a dozen classes.

A dozen of anything isn't minimalist. A minimalist set of classes is "sword guy, spell guy, sneaky guy". And that's something you could do. You could set up a game like that, and it would be an entirely reasonable way of doing things. But that's never been the path D&D chose.

[Ignimortis]

But the game isn't imbalanced at level one. At 1st level, the Wizard/Cleric/Fighter/Rogue party is balanced quite well. The issue is that casters scale up better than non-casters. The versatility is not actually nearly as big a deal as people think it is. The Beguiler and Dread Necromancer are perfectly competitive with more traditional full casters, suggesting that the problem with martials is that they don't get useful abilities, not that the Wizard can cast both Cloudkill and Cone of Cold.

For the life of me, I can't understand why people insist on starting from "casters are too good" when the Monk exists. Like, maybe fix the class that is basically unplayable before you insist on taking away people's toys? Certainly, there are spells that need to be nerfed. But the Wizard is not actually more fundamentally problematic than the average class.

The only thing that's keeping casters from wrecking face at level 1 is type immunities and actually limited slots (for now). Sleep is still an encounter-ender that no non-caster can match in specific situations. When you get to level 3, you can get Grease and Web and Glitterdust.

However, my argument is that casters are too versatile by concept from level 1. I see no reason why anyone called "Wizard" should be able to access 70% of level 1 spells in the game at level 1. A level 1 Wizard is still an apprentice mage, but their breadth of access and potential versatility are already archmage level, all they lack is archmage-level power behind those spells. A Cleric can gain access to too much miracles, as well. Druid, IMO, should have never been a single class - it's Nature Cleric and Shapeshifter concepts in one class, and somehow they don't interfere or divide the power budget between themselves.

I do agree that martials need to scale better, but that doesn't mean that casters are not unbalancing the game by themselves. The only balance you can have with a default Wizard and a savvy Wizard player would be Wizard-level, and, IMO, a game where every PC can do everything given a little time to prepare is either not fun for anyone but people who plan out everything, or plain broken because there's no actual counter to what the players can do without pitting them against another, better Wizard.


Presumably not. The game system is flexible enough that you could easily center each class around a hyper-specific archetype, and decompose the base wizard into 10 or 20 different classes. But concision is a virtue and if you can have a single mage class with a largely unified spell mechanic but an altered spell list depending on your focus, there's probably no need to go ultra-specific.

I think it's really about approach. Honestly, I had in mind the sort of minimalist meta 5e has gone with where there are only like a dozen classes. Maybe you think it would be better to have a very large number of base classes that each fulfill a very specific archetype, get rid of prestige classes and relegate anything that's too specific to be a base class to feats or similar. That would certainly mean a big change from the classic D&D class lineup, but wouldn't necessarily be bad.

I feel like limiting things to 10 or even 15 classes would limit the publisher's ability to introduce new mechanics, unless you adopt something like PF1's archetypes or 5e subclasses - then make them impactful enough that every archetype is basically a class on its' own. But that feels unnecessary to me — you'd basically have 20 classes masquerading as "subclasses" despite not really sharing a lot with their base class. The only thing that might justify that would be other pieces of class-locked content that you would like to be systematically accessible, i.e. Fighter-only feats that any Fighter archetype would be able to take.

I like the subclass/archetype approach, but I think that they should still rely on the same base mechanics of the parent class, even if they could stand to be more impactful than 5e subclasses (3-5 abilities in 20 levels? wowzers, so I'll get about 2 before the typical game tapers down, and I won't get to use the latter 2 for long even if I get them).

[NigelWalmsley]

The only thing that's keeping casters from wrecking face at level 1 is type immunities and actually limited slots (for now). Sleep is still an encounter-ender that no non-caster can match in specific situations. When you get to level 3, you can get Grease and Web and Glitterdust.

At 1st level, hitting someone with a sword is also an instant kill. Low-level combat is brutal, but it's not actually all that imbalanced. Casters have a limited number of nukes, and martials can attack more frequently to lesser effect and take the occasional it. Also, type immunities actually don't matter that much, because basically all the stuff that has them is Mindless, meaning it loses to Silent Image.


However, my argument is that casters are too versatile by concept from level 1. I see no reason why anyone called "Wizard" should be able to access 70% of level 1 spells in the game at level 1.

Well, they can't do that. They begin the game with about seven spells. The game contains more than ten spells. Now, I know that you meant they can pick from that range, but so what? No one thinks its impressive that the Fighter can choose from whatever percentage of feats, because when we talk about classes that are bad, we understand that the options you don't have don't make you any more powerful.


A Cleric can gain access to too much miracles

That I can agree with. The Cleric's spellcasting mechanic is a problem, because they actually do get all the spells. Every Cleric in the world can prepare any Cleric spell ever printed tomorrow. That's a totally unsustainable nightmare that only kind of works because most people play characters extremely poorly. But the Wizard doesn't actually work that way, despite what some people on the internet would have you believe (at least, at levels of optimization where non-casting classes are relevant).


The only balance you can have with a default Wizard and a savvy Wizard player would be Wizard-level

Yes, every class is balanced at the level of that class. I don't understand what you expect me to find interesting or persuasive about the observation that if someone plays a Wizard, things balanced with them will be balanced at the level of the Wizard. That's true of the Cleric, the Rogue, the Fighter, the Bard, the Ranger, and every other class.


a game where every PC can do everything given a little time to prepare

The Wizard can't do everything. And in particular, he can't do things as well as a specialist at his power level. A Beguiler is genuinely better at social situations than a Wizard who has prepared a bunch of social spells. He has better skills to fall back on, a wider range of options, and more flexibility in deploying those options. The notion that "Wizards can do anything" or "Wizards are better than specialists at their jobs" comes from comparing Wizards to specialists who are mechanically inferior.

[Elves]

People want the opportunity to play a Fire Mage that is meaningfully and substantively different from the Ice Mage their friend is playing.
If anything I would see Pyromancer as an alternate school specialization. You can only learn and cast Universal and [Fire] spells, your familiar is a fire elemental, and people who are damaged by your fire spells catch fire. Then, just like every other specialization, you get a few more themed abilities as you go up in level. What mechanics would a pyromancer have that require their own unique chassis?

In the game as is, feats and prestige classes are what 3e has for that level of specialization.


A dozen of anything isn't minimalist.
A dozen eggs is minimalist because it's a well-recognized, iconic set. It's not Black Square minimalist, but it's a closed meta with a list of names you can easily memorize.

I do like what Pathfinder did with the Summoner, but if you're going for simplicity, it's not hard to roll a version of that into summoner wizard. Your familiar becomes a simplified version of the PF summoner's eidolon, etc.

I was interested to know though, if you went full on with base class decompression, would you lean toward getting rid of prestige classes to compensate? I know you expressed not being happy with the PRC system at one point.

[Ignimortis]

Yes, every class is balanced at the level of that class. I don't understand what you expect me to find interesting or persuasive about the observation that if someone plays a Wizard, things balanced with them will be balanced at the level of the Wizard. That's true of the Cleric, the Rogue, the Fighter, the Bard, the Ranger, and every other class.

What I meant was that you can play a Wizard on a level balanced with most (or all) Fighters. You can't play a Fighter on a level balanced with most Wizards. A Wizard has too much of a possible range, which just as much a problem as Fighter's lack of much range.



The Wizard can't do everything. And in particular, he can't do things as well as a specialist at his power level. A Beguiler is genuinely better at social situations than a Wizard who has prepared a bunch of social spells. He has better skills to fall back on, a wider range of options, and more flexibility in deploying those options. The notion that "Wizards can do anything" or "Wizards are better than specialists at their jobs" comes from comparing Wizards to specialists who are mechanically inferior.

The best part about Beguilers and why I like them much more than Wizards is, they can't actually do much beyond social situations, CC and skill use. They don't get Planar Binding or Teleport. They don't even get Fly. They don't get a lot of utility that you wouldn't expect on a mind mage. Their potential range is short, but it's situated in a good place where they can both be powerful and not overpowering.

Same applies to Warmages and other classes with actually finite spell lists - you always know what they can do and what they can't do, and that doesn't depend on the DM banning every single scroll from loot.

[NigelWalmsley]

If anything I would see Pyromancer as an alternate school specialization. You can only learn and cast Universal and [Fire] spells, your familiar is a fire elemental, and people who are damaged by your fire spells catch fire. Then, just like every other specialization, you get a few more themed abilities as you go up in level. What mechanics would a pyromancer have that require their own unique chassis?

What's the advantage of making it a school specialization? Imagine you're putting out The Elemental Lords, a new splatbook that is all about Genies, the Elemental Planes, the Princes of Elemental Evil, and whatever other element-themed stuff you've decided to put in your game. One of the things you've decided belongs in there is a Fire Mage class. Which is more natural, more concise: writing it as a self-contained class that is fully specified within The Elemental Lords, or writing it as a subclass that requires people to page back and forth to the PHB? If you're already writing a new ability progression and a new set of class features, what do you get for insisting "no dude this is totally a Wizard"?


A dozen eggs is minimalist because it's a well-recognized, iconic set. It's not Black Square minimalist, but it's a closed meta with a list of names you can easily memorize.

Sure, you can memorize the names. But that doesn't do you any good, because we've decided we aren't going to shrink the amount of stuff. Sure, Greg says he's a Wizard. But does that mean he does high single-target damage as an Arcane Sniper, AoE disabling as a Venom Mage, summoning as an Infernal Beacon, or something else? All you've actually done is make the word "Wizard" meaningless.


I was interested to know though, if you went full on with base class decompression, would you lean toward getting rid of prestige classes to compensate? I know you expressed not being happy with the PRC system at one point.

I think Prestige Classes (which really should be more like Paragon Paths) fulfill a fundamentally different niche from Base Classes. Base Classes are things that you should be able to be from level one. So something like Knight or Fire Mage or Rogue should be a base class, because those are things you can imagine a starting character being. Whereas Prestige Classes should have, well, prestige. They should be things like Archmage or Heavenly General or Witch King, where you would not expect to do that from the outset.


What I meant was that you can play a Wizard on a level balanced with most (or all) Fighters. You can't play a Fighter on a level balanced with most Wizards. A Wizard has too much of a possible range, which just as much a problem as Fighter's lack of much range.

Isn't that as much an argument for taking away weak options as strong ones?


The best part about Beguilers and why I like them much more than Wizards is, they can't actually do much beyond social situations, CC and skill use.

That seems like a distinction without a difference. They contribute in a range of scenarios, isn't that exactly what you said was a problem with the Wizard? What's the point where additional options stop being okay? I think you're going to find it very difficult to draw defensible lines here, because the real issue is the range of problems a character can solve, not the range of options they have.


They don't get Planar Binding or Teleport.

Neither does the Druid. And the Beguiler does get both minionmancy (Diplomancy/Charm/Dominate) and strategic-level fast movement (Shadow Walk). Now, sure, those abilities are different from, and you could reasonably argue worse than (particularly for Shadow Walk v Teleport) the ones Wizards get. But the Beguiler is still operating in the same "options for most situations" paradigm you've criticized for the Wizard.


and that doesn't depend on the DM banning every single scroll from loot.

That seems like a weird thing to complain about. Scrolls from loot at the thing the DM controls completely. If they cause problems for the campaign, that is in a very real sense the DM's fault.

[Ignimortis]

Isn't that as much an argument for taking away weak options as strong ones?

I'd delete Fighters too, if that's what you're asking. Warblade vs Beguiler is a much closer competition (though still far from balanced) than Fighter vs Wizard.



That seems like a distinction without a difference. They contribute in a range of scenarios, isn't that exactly what you said was a problem with the Wizard? What's the point where additional options stop being okay? I think you're going to find it very difficult to draw defensible lines here, because the real issue is the range of problems a character can solve, not the range of options they have.

Neither does the Druid. And the Beguiler does get both minionmancy (Diplomancy/Charm/Dominate) and strategic-level fast movement (Shadow Walk). Now, sure, those abilities are different from, and you could reasonably argue worse than (particularly for Shadow Walk v Teleport) the ones Wizards get. But the Beguiler is still operating in the same "options for most situations" paradigm you've criticized for the Wizard.

Having options by themselves isn't bad. Anyone has a very limited social option in the form of Diplomacy, it's just that it doesn't work all that often, and generally pales before anything magical like Charm or Dominate. Riding a horse (or a griffin) is a poor man's Teleport. An option that "kinda sorta works, not perfectly but it should get the job done" isn't actually bad for the game, if obviously better options exist but are harder to acquire.

For example, I wouldn't mind Wizards so much if they were a 2/3 or 1/2 casting class. Sure, you'd still get solutions to everything - but you get them late enough that other classes who specialize in certain things can do them much better than you, and you don't get the best things anyway.

The issue is both getting strong options and a lot of them. You can do either one or the other. Getting a lot of weaker options with a few strong ones is fine, as long as those options are still serviceable and can do the job they need to do. Getting a small amount of strong options is also fine, as long as they're at least a bit more widely applicable than straight HP damage. The boundary here is imperceptible, of course - Diplomacy as a cross-class skill on a non-CHA based class is much less useful than a class Diplomacy with incentives to boost CHA and enough skill points to keep it maxed. Both still lose to Charm Monster, but one is useful when Charm Monster isn't around, and the other is still bad.



That seems like a weird thing to complain about. Scrolls from loot at the thing the DM controls completely. If they cause problems for the campaign, that is in a very real sense the DM's fault.

There are lots of ways Wizards can get a lot of extra spells and circumvent their natural weakness of not having as much access to their spell list as divine casters. Scrolls are just the most obvious one, which is why I picked them to represent the problem.

[NigelWalmsley]

I'd delete Fighters too, if that's what you're asking. Warblade vs Beguiler is a much closer competition (though still far from balanced) than Fighter vs Wizard.

I meant for the Wizard specifically. If the problem is that the range is too big, you can shrink the range by deleting the low end of Wizard options as easily as by deleting the high end. Why not do that?


The issue is both getting strong options and a lot of them.

What's a "strong option"? Is a +20 Diplomacy bonus a good non-combat option? Is a CL 10 Fireball a good combat option? The answer is, of course, "it depends". The strength or utility of an option isn't something that exists in a vacuum, but relative to other options. Both of those abilities are pretty damn broken in a party of low-op 1st level Fighters. But in a party of TO 20th level Wizards, neither is particularly worth mentioning. The idea that the Wizard has unreasonably strong options is a result of anchoring to a system where "hope your DM had you encounter a flying creature and let you tame it" is the best option half the classes have for strategic movement.

Consider the example of the Beguiler and the Wizard in more detail. Certainly, it's true that Shadow Walk is broadly worse than Teleport. But that's not inherently true, nor is the only way to fix it nerfing Teleport. Imagine if Shadow Walk was a 5th level (or even 4th level) spell, or allowed you to take a whole army of creatures, or allowed you to make multiple stops, or was dramatically faster, or any number of other buffs. It could very easily be a competitive option with Teleport for some use cases (look at Cat's Fey Gates, and later Twilight, in A Practical Guide to Evil, for an example of how that might work).


Both still lose to Charm Monster, but one is useful when Charm Monster isn't around, and the other is still bad.

I don't think that's true. Diplomacy does different things from Charm Monster. Notably, it is at-will, so you can Diplomancy every random NPC you meet without having to determine if that will put you out of resources you need for a fight later (or simply to Charm a more important NPC). There's also the question of what happens when a Charm wears off. Maybe people won't notice, or maybe it'll sour their attitude towards you.


There are lots of ways Wizards can get a lot of extra spells and circumvent their natural weakness of not having as much access to their spell list as divine casters. Scrolls are just the most obvious one, which is why I picked them to represent the problem.

Sure. And many of those are prohibitively expensive, or things that I don't think are actually relevant to the discussion. If you're using Secret Page to get every spell in your spellbook, you're probably not playing a campaign where people are overly concerned with the value proposition of play a Fighter or even a Warblade.

[Ignimortis]

I meant for the Wizard specifically. If the problem is that the range is too big, you can shrink the range by deleting the low end of Wizard options as easily as by deleting the high end. Why not do that?

Because at that point, the only people who can compete with Wizards are other full casters. And at this point, I take umbrage with the amount of access they get - in my opinion, no class should be able to get the strongest or close to that options for most problems in the game. If a mage wants to Fireball, that's fine. But they shouldn't be able to decide the next day that they don't want to Fireball today and instead want to Fly or Polymorph into something or call up demons to Fireball things for them and also serve as meatshields.

For example, I'm fine with Fireballs being strong enough for the mage to be a good combat character who might even obviate a need for a Fighter. However, that character shouldn't be able to fill many other roles. In short, you pick a niche, you stick with it. You shouldn't get to change your niche on a whim, or abuse the system to fill almost every single one of them with strong options for each.



What's a "strong option"? Is a +20 Diplomacy bonus a good non-combat option? Is a CL 10 Fireball a good combat option? The answer is, of course, "it depends". The strength or utility of an option isn't something that exists in a vacuum, but relative to other options. Both of those abilities are pretty damn broken in a party of low-op 1st level Fighters. But in a party of TO 20th level Wizards, neither is particularly worth mentioning. The idea that the Wizard has unreasonably strong options is a result of anchoring to a system where "hope your DM had you encounter a flying creature and let you tame it" is the best option half the classes have for strategic movement.

Consider the example of the Beguiler and the Wizard in more detail. Certainly, it's true that Shadow Walk is broadly worse than Teleport. But that's not inherently true, nor is the only way to fix it nerfing Teleport. Imagine if Shadow Walk was a 5th level (or even 4th level) spell, or allowed you to take a whole army of creatures, or allowed you to make multiple stops, or was dramatically faster, or any number of other buffs. It could very easily be a competitive option with Teleport for some use cases (look at Cat's Fey Gates, and later Twilight, in A Practical Guide to Evil, for an example of how that might work).


And if Cure Wounds spells were low-level Heal variants, that would make in-combat healing better. You can make a dozen Teleport-adjacent spells that would be more useful in certain situations. I've DM'd a campaign where Shadow Walk was, in fact, used in place of Teleport, because nobody had access to it, but the Warlock could Shadow Walk at-will. That doesn't solve the problem of some classes being able to fill different niches each day with great strength (compared to their current situation, most of the time) behind them, and the others being unable to.



I don't think that's true. Diplomacy does different things from Charm Monster. Notably, it is at-will, so you can Diplomancy every random NPC you meet without having to determine if that will put you out of resources you need for a fight later (or simply to Charm a more important NPC). There's also the question of what happens when a Charm wears off. Maybe people won't notice, or maybe it'll sour their attitude towards you.

That mostly depends on the spell's wording - IIRC, 3.5 didn't include the part about Charm Monster giving the target a chance to realize it was bewitched. If it did, then yes, it's risky and Diplomacy becomes way better.



Sure. And many of those are prohibitively expensive, or things that I don't think are actually relevant to the discussion. If you're using Secret Page to get every spell in your spellbook, you're probably not playing a campaign where people are overly concerned with the value proposition of play a Fighter or even a Warblade.

Which is why people who care about that usually pick spells they're sure they'll need at some point, or which are so full of utility it'd be impossible to avoid a situation where one of those would be useful.

[NigelWalmsley]

Because at that point, the only people who can compete with Wizards are other full casters.

But that's contingent, not fundamental. It's like objecting to Weapon Specialization because only Fighters can take it. You could just write a non-Fighter class that can take it (and, indeed, WotC eventually did: the Warblade). Similarly, there's no reason that you couldn't write a Swordsage, or a Binder, or a Warlock that was competitive with a Wizard, people just didn't do that. There's nothing about knowing ancient martial secrets, or binding beings from outside space and time, or making a deal with the devil that precludes being as effective as a guy who read a bunch of books.


And at this point, I take umbrage with the amount of access they get - in my opinion, no class should be able to get the strongest or close to that options for most problems in the game.

Then why not give some other classes competitive options? Do you have a fundamental objection to what Teleport or Major Creation or Cloudkill does? Should those effects not exist? If not, why not simply provide people with competitive alternatives?


That doesn't solve the problem of some classes being able to fill different niches each day with great strength (compared to their current situation, most of the time) behind them, and the others being unable to.

But why is the problem the adaptable classes? Suppose you had a game where everyone picked a niche and stuck to it. Maybe you had a party with the niches of "Face", "Healer", "Crafter", and "Infiltrator". What happens when they discover that the adventure requires them to be 1,000 miles away tomorrow? Why is a paradigm where sometimes the party gets smacked in the face with an unsolvable problem better than one where they pick the best of several workable solutions? It seems to me that the game improves in direct proportion to the number of situations where the players have meaningful choices to make.


Which is why people who care about that usually pick spells they're sure they'll need at some point, or which are so full of utility it'd be impossible to avoid a situation where one of those would be useful.

Sure. But that goes directly against the notion that Wizards have solutions to every problem, or have a full roster of silver bullets. If you pick the four, or six, or eight highest-impact 5th level spells, probably none of them are Cone of Cold. So you can't go and trivialize the monster that's only vulnerable to Cone of Cold.

[Ignimortis]

But why is the problem the adaptable classes? Suppose you had a game where everyone picked a niche and stuck to it. Maybe you had a party with the niches of "Face", "Healer", "Crafter", and "Infiltrator". What happens when they discover that the adventure requires them to be 1,000 miles away tomorrow? Why is a paradigm where sometimes the party gets smacked in the face with an unsolvable problem better than one where they pick the best of several workable solutions? It seems to me that the game improves in direct proportion to the number of situations where the players have meaningful choices to make.

My perception is colored by different RPGs that I enjoy perhaps more than D&D, Shadowrun being the main one. Your Street Samurai can still roll for Con when your Control Thoughts mage isn't around. They can even be good at it. It can solve the problem well enough. The Control Thoughts mage is much better at solving that problem, but that doesn't mean the problem cannot be interacted with without the Control Thoughts mage. I'm all for problems being approachable from different angles - what I don't like is people having their sleeves full of "I solve this situation instantly" cards that defy niche boundaries.

I.e. a mage who can Control Thoughts, summon Force 9 spirits to do combat for them, and Improved Reflexes themselves so hard they can drive as well as your rigger is a bad thing for me. D&D Wizards fall into that category pretty easily, precisely because they have potential access to enough effects to make "basically everything" their niche.



Sure. But that goes directly against the notion that Wizards have solutions to every problem, or have a full roster of silver bullets. If you pick the four, or six, or eight highest-impact 5th level spells, probably none of them are Cone of Cold. So you can't go and trivialize the monster that's only vulnerable to Cone of Cold.

And that's where power subjectivity comes in. What, exactly, is the monster who can only be beaten by Cone of Cold? And might it be that your Wizard picked up Shadow Conjuration or Summon Monster V something like that, and can just emulate Cone of Cold anyway? How often do you face those monsters, and would Planar Binding really be a worse level 5 choice than Cone of Cold in general? The current conditions of the system make it so that you don't really need Cone of Cold, and sometimes you can get it without even picking it.

[Blue Jay]

For the life of me, I can't understand why people insist on starting from "casters are too good" when the Monk exists. Like, maybe fix the class that is basically unplayable before you insist on taking away people's toys? Certainly, there are spells that need to be nerfed. But the Wizard is not actually more fundamentally problematic than the average class.

I don't see what's difficult to understand about it. First, "basically unplayable" is rather harsh, don't you think? For the average player in the average game, a monk will pull its weight in a party just fine. Granted, as you increase the expected level of optimization, the monk will find it harder and harder to keep pace; but that's not the same thing as "basically unplayable."

Second, it makes a lot of sense from a DM's perspective. When you view the "D&D players" community as a whole, the distribution of power is heavily skewed towards the low end: many more players play at a low power level than play at a high power level. So, "low power" is likely to be more in line with most players' expectations, and "high power" is more likely to be seen as an outlier. And outliers are more likely to draw criticisms.

So as a DM, I intuitively expect that a high-power character is more likely than a low-power character to result in imbalance and discontent at my table. On top of that, a high-power character is going to be a bigger challenge for me as a DM. From there, it's pretty easy to understand why DMs think controlling the power ceiling is a higher priority than controlling the power floor.

Now, is this sort of intuitive reasoning leading to a correct conclusion? I can't claim to know that. I seriously doubt that there is a "correct" solution to begin with: this is all going to be heavily table-dependent. But at the very least, I acknowledge that it is a very rational, intuitive thought process, and one that's very likely to be common among DMs. So, I don't think it's surprising in the least that "nerf the wizard" is perceived as a higher priority than "buff the monk."

[Elves]

Which is more natural, more concise: writing it as a self-contained class that is fully specified within The Elemental Lords, or writing it as a subclass that requires people to page back and forth to the PHB?
Very arguably it's more concise to have an umbrella model of 10 base classes, with each having 10 subclasses that determine some part, but not all, of the class's functionality, as opposed to having 100 base classes straight out.

For the core book to define the standard base classes and then the thematic splatbooks to present new thematic options for those classes also seems natural.

If we're talking about concision, if Pyromancer has the same mechanical chassis as wizard and similar abilities (fire elemental familiar vs standard wizard familiar), concision would be compressing them.

I don't come down on one side or the other. Umbrella model feels "classic", large lineup of specialists feels "sleek". If I were being asked to write a new D&D edition I would choose the first, because people have a certain expectation of the standard D&D class lineup and the mass audience will be turned off by 100 classes. For an indie game "sleek" might be the better feel, and breaking from the standard D&D classes would help differentiate the product.


If you're already writing a new ability progression and a new set of class features, what do you get for insisting "no dude this is totally a Wizard"? ...All you've actually done is make the word "Wizard" meaningless.
Clearly if you went the subclass route there would be shared class features (including the core casting mechanic!), and in others, like the familiar example, there would be obvious continuity. The simplest way is having your class features have one track of specialization abilities and one track of shared abilities.

One advantage of rolling things into one class is compatibility -- look at how hard some of the later 3.5 classes got shafted by lack of splat content, imagine that with 100 classes that are all expected to be current and playable.

[Batcathat]

Again, I genuinely do not understand how people can look at "some classes can contribute in almost any situation" as a problem with those classes. Is "people can contribute all the time" not the goal? The biggest problem with the Fighter is that there are whole swaths of the game where your options amount to "sit down" and "shut up". Why would we want to enshrine that as an intentional part of class design?

Contribute in a lot of situations? Yes. Probably solve all of them? No, not to me, at least. Again, I want party members to have different strenghts and to complement each other. Not having one party member (or all of them, actually) that can do almost everything. A PC should be able to contribute in a range of situations but they shouldn't be great at all of them. The rogue shouldn't fight in the front lines as well as the fighter and the fighter shouldn't sneak around as well as the rogue. There should be situations where a caster is superior but it shouldn't be all of them.

But yes, the fighter has the opposite problem. I don't think either class is an example of great design.

[vasilidor]

i have seen monks in relatively unoptimized games. against monsters of the appropriate CR they were nigh useless past level 6, and the guy playing the monk was arguably the most optimized in the group, as he took feats that upped his abilities in combat. finesse fighting, weapon focus, magic items to help. the barbarian had power attack and a +2 sword at level 7. guess who performed better? as in was actually able to fight against the CR of the parties level? the thing that saved the monk from absolute uselessness was the party acquired a bard that would use bardic abilities. we were running a lot of random encounters then with just the basic monster manual, the monk player quietly folded his character away and we never looked at it again until ways to make spell casting monks came online in the game.

[Mordante]

Yeah. People keep asking "what if <seeping nerf to magic>" and the answer keeps being "that would massively increase the relative value of spells that are already problematic while crippling characters that cause exactly zero problems", and yet people never learn that sweeping nerfs to magic are not the answer. Maybe try some other solution? Like sweeping buffs to non-magic characters, or targeted nerfs to magic, or literally anything else.

For the life of me, I can't understand why people insist on starting from "casters are too good" when the Monk exists. Like, maybe fix the class that is basically unplayable before you insist on taking away people's toys? Certainly, there are spells that need to be nerfed. But the Wizard is not actually more fundamentally problematic than the average class.

I never wrote that casters are too good. I wrote that non-casters are too weak. That is a very different. IMHO A non-caster should maybe get something like magic resistance as they level. Or maybe high level non caster should gain some natural abilities. Like dark vision is a natural ability but more anti caster or protection from casters.

[Mordante]

What's the advantage of making it a school specialization? Imagine you're putting out The Elemental Lords, a new splatbook that is all about Genies, the Elemental Planes, the Princes of Elemental Evil, and whatever other element-themed stuff you've decided to put in your game. One of the things you've decided belongs in there is a Fire Mage class. Which is more natural, more concise: writing it as a self-contained class that is fully specified within The Elemental Lords, or writing it as a subclass that requires people to page back and forth to the PHB? If you're already writing a new ability progression and a new set of class features, what do you get for insisting "no dude this is totally a Wizard"?


That seems like a weird thing to complain about. Scrolls from loot at the thing the DM controls completely. If they cause problems for the campaign, that is in a very real sense the DM's fault.

In the few year I have been playing DnD I've never seen anyone using scrolls. Does anyone use scrolls at all?

[Ignimortis]

In the few year I have been playing DnD I've never seen anyone using scrolls. Does anyone use scrolls at all?

I have never seen a Wizard pass a scroll by, unless they already had the spell on it in their spellbook.

[ATHATH]

The multiclass EXP penalty. Full stop.

Also, only being able to attack once with a standard action (without having a specific ability that says otherwise) made acquiring Pounce or a source of free/nigh-free movement essential for melee-focused martials (especially Monks, most of whom couldn't use the easiest way to get Pounce (dipping Barbarian 1) without some alignment shenanigans).

[Aotrs Commander]

I have never seen a Wizard pass a scroll by, unless they already had the spell on it in their spellbook.

Collecting them, sure but in my general experience, I don't tend to see my parties use many consumables (horde them like they're going out of fashion), but not use too many. I think the only character I've personally ever had that did much was my Naruto-ninja cleric-monk who uses "scrolls" (reflavoured) and as I got higher level, even that not so much. I think it very much depends on your group.

[NigelWalmsley]

I'm all for problems being approachable from different angles - what I don't like is people having their sleeves full of "I solve this situation instantly" cards that defy niche boundaries.

That's a distinction without a difference. Also, again, the Wizard's spells are not "I solve this situation instantly" cards in most cases, and when they are it's because the situation is a low-level problem. No one thinks it's weird that any 10th level character can trivialize a CR 3 combat encounter, we equally shouldn't think it's weird for 10th level characters to trivialize 3rd level non-combat encounters.


And that's where power subjectivity comes in. What, exactly, is the monster who can only be beaten by Cone of Cold?

I dunno. I picked Cone of Cold because I didn't want to get caught up in an argument about whether Fabricate or whatever spell I picked that's actually good was one of the six best 5th level spells. The general point is that the Wizard's spell selection is limited, and will therefore have gaps.


I don't see what's difficult to understand about it. First, "basically unplayable" is rather harsh, don't you think? For the average player in the average game, a monk will pull its weight in a party just fine.

And for the average player in the average game, the Wizard doesn't cause any problems at all. The vast majority of people and groups do not push the game anywhere near the points where problems arise.


On top of that, a high-power character is going to be a bigger challenge for me as a DM.

Except it's not. Low-power characters cause more problems, because the penalty for undershooting is worse than the penalty for overshooting. If a character is too strong, the party wins easily. If a character is too weak, the party loses. Guess what? The party is supposed to win! The fact that the Wizard uses his abilities to solve problems better than you think is ideal is really much, much less of a problem than the fact that the Monk's abilities are insufficient to solve the problem he confronts.


Now, is this sort of intuitive reasoning leading to a correct conclusion?

The frequency with which people's intuitions are wrong in virtually every other domain suggests that it is not.


If we're talking about concision, if Pyromancer has the same mechanical chassis as wizard and similar abilities (fire elemental familiar vs standard wizard familiar), concision would be compressing them.

That seems like a pretty big if. Not every caster is going to have the same chassis as the Wizard, nor should they have the same abilities.


Umbrella model feels "classic"

Why? Your assertions to the contrary, that wasn't actually how 3e behaved. It's only marginally how 5e behaves, and that's more because 5e just doesn't get any content than because of any real change in how things are approached. In fact, moving the Warlock to the PHB is an increase in the number of classes. It could easily have been a Wizard or Sorcerer subclass.


One advantage of rolling things into one class is compatibility -- look at how hard some of the later 3.5 classes got shafted by lack of splat content, imagine that with 100 classes that are all expected to be current and playable.

Or you could just design your system for compatibility. Classes like the Beguiler or Archivist didn't get shafted because they were written in a way that was compatible with existing expansion options. Imagine that Tome of Battle had come down with a decree that every PrC with full BAB also gave full progression as an initiator. That would have solved a lot of compatibility problems.


Again, I want party members to have different strenghts and to complement each other. Not having one party member (or all of them, actually) that can do almost everything. A PC should be able to contribute in a range of situations but they shouldn't be great at all of them. The rogue shouldn't fight in the front lines as well as the fighter and the fighter shouldn't sneak around as well as the rogue. There should be situations where a caster is superior but it shouldn't be all of them.

You are describing the dynamic that exists between multiple casters right now. A Wizard can't do everything as well as his party members can in a party of a Wizard, a Druid, a Beguiler, and a Psion.


In the few year I have been playing DnD I've never seen anyone using scrolls. Does anyone use scrolls at all?

In general, people tend to hoard consumables irrationally, stockpiling them against a future need that never materializes. I have seen people uses scrolls, but those are generally scrolls that are purchased for a specific purpose, not stuff from loot. Though of course Wizards will learn looted scrolls (though, again, this is a good thing -- most casters are very hard to provide interesting loot for).

[Batcathat]

You are describing the dynamic that exists between multiple casters right now. A Wizard can't do everything as well as his party members can in a party of a Wizard, a Druid, a Beguiler, and a Psion.

So you're saying that in an ideally balanced game a fighter, a rogue and a wizard should all be able to handle all sorts of situations (combat, scouting, social, stealth, etc.) really well, but some of them might be slightly better at some situations than others? I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that but it's not what I would want. A caster being able to do almost anything is boring enough to me, a non-caster being able to do almost anything wouldn't make it better.

I agree that a character not being able to contribute in a lot of situations is usually no fun – but I think all characters being able to contribute almost equally in all situations is going too far in the other direction.

All classes should have situations they excel at, but also situations they just suck.

[Telok]

In general, people tend to hoard consumables irrationally, stockpiling them against a future need that never materializes. I have seen people uses scrolls, but those are generally scrolls that are purchased for a specific purpose, not stuff from loot. Though of course Wizards will learn looted scrolls (though, again, this is a good thing -- most casters are very hard to provide interesting loot for).

Another issue is the utility:cost ratio. Utility tends towards the linear increases with caster level (5d6 -> 6d6) or multiplicative increases with spell level (CLW -> Mass CLW). Cost however runs from multiplicative for caster level to exponential for some bonuses. Around about 3rd level spells it stops being worth it.

So people may use consumables where the minimum CL effect is good enough, the action cost is negligible or ok, and monetary cost of creating & using is obviously less than a useful fraction of your next really good bonus item.

A scroll of fireball is ok as backup at 5th level when 3rd level spell slots are limited, but trash at 10th when the action could be better used for a 4th or 5th level spell and your own fireballs do double the damage. A scroll of polar ray is good at 10th level, but also so expensive that it competes with being sold for a pearl or power or something.

When I play casters it's wands of 1st level utility spells, scrolls of 1st to 3rd utility that don't come up enough to warrant memorizing, and looted potions if they have a useful effect worth the action cost (sell the barkskin potion if you have a +2 natural armor amulet).

[NigelWalmsley]

So you're saying that in an ideally balanced game a fighter, a rogue and a wizard should all be able to handle all sorts of situations (combat, scouting, social, stealth, etc.) really well, but some of them might be slightly better at some situations than others?

What I'm saying is that "really well" is an entirely relative term. The reason Teleport is a really good solution to the problem "we need to get from point A to point B" is precisely because other people don't have solutions at all. I think combat is a revealing analogy here. In combat, every character contributes, at roughly equal rates but in different ways. Similarly, characters have the tools to easily handle much lower-level combat encounters. That dynamic seems to be broadly acceptable, what's the issue with having other stuff work like that?


Another issue is the utility:cost ratio. Utility tends towards the linear increases with caster level (5d6 -> 6d6) or multiplicative increases with spell level (CLW -> Mass CLW). Cost however runs from multiplicative for caster level to exponential for some bonuses. Around about 3rd level spells it stops being worth it.

That's generally true, but not universally, which reveals yet another problem. Through most of the game, it's entirely plausible to buy scrolls that will win an encounter for less than the loot you get from winning that encounter. Which means you can functionally do infinite encounters per day.

Frankly, I'm not at all convinced that consumables as conceived in 3e work at all. Except maybe healing potions, because those tend to just get treated as "more HP".

[PoeticallyPsyco]

Imagine that Tome of Battle had come down with a decree that every PrC with full BAB also gave full progression as an initiator. That would have solved a lot of compatibility problems.

Side note, but Tome of Battle actually did come with such a statement. Can't remember the exact page, but the rule is that any PrC that doesn't explicitly state otherwise fully progresses initiator level.

I've seen arguments that this falls afoul of the primary source rule (that is, ToB can't edit other sourcebooks like that), but honestly I don't see a problem, since it's only stating how other classes interact with a system unique to ToB, and mechanically regardless of initiator level those other PrCs aren't giving you new maneuvers/stances, so it's still a tradeoff.

[Ignimortis]

What I'm saying is that "really well" is an entirely relative term. The reason Teleport is a really good solution to the problem "we need to get from point A to point B" is precisely because other people don't have solutions at all. I think combat is a revealing analogy here. In combat, every character contributes, at roughly equal rates but in different ways. Similarly, characters have the tools to easily handle much lower-level combat encounters. That dynamic seems to be broadly acceptable, what's the issue with having other stuff work like that?


No, Teleport is a really good solution to the problem of getting around places because A) it takes minimal time B) it fulfills the requirements of what a typical party usually (not always, but most of the time) needs from a spell that moves them around - you get to take the whole party with you and you are pretty sure you end up where you want to be.

As such, if there were effects on par with it in general usefulness, they would probably share those traits. Compare it to theoretical Shadow Walk from your example earlier - it travels much slower, and the ability to lead an army through might be useful occasionally, but in general, it would only be used as long as you don't have access to Teleport, and wouldn't replace it. There can be things that are too good to be the baseline.

[Zanos]

Teleport is only helpful for locations you are at least somewhat familiar with. Shadow Walk can get you somewhere without a chance of being teleported into the middle of a dragons lair instead of the middle of a kobolds lair.

I still maintain that if your DMs idea of an interesting challenge for a 9th level party is to get somewhere they have already been, he's not a very good DM.

[Ignimortis]

Teleport is only helpful for locations you are at least somewhat familiar with. Shadow Walk can get you somewhere without a chance of being teleported into the middle of a dragons lair instead of the middle of a kobolds lair.

I still maintain that if your DMs idea of an interesting challenge for a 9th level party is to get somewhere they have already been, he's not a very good DM.

That's a weakness that's far more easy to mitigate than Shadow Walk's speed. Scry and Fry isn't a meme for no reason. There's also Teleport Without Error, though it is a higher-level spell.

[Batcathat]

What I'm saying is that "really well" is an entirely relative term. The reason Teleport is a really good solution to the problem "we need to get from point A to point B" is precisely because other people don't have solutions at all. I think combat is a revealing analogy here. In combat, every character contributes, at roughly equal rates but in different ways. Similarly, characters have the tools to easily handle much lower-level combat encounters. That dynamic seems to be broadly acceptable, what's the issue with having other stuff work like that?

Sure, in general I agree with the idea of every class contributing equally but differently. But I don't think that's what would happen if everyone was brought up to a wizards level of versatility and effectiveness — magic can handle almost any type of situation pretty effectively and, as I said earlier, I don't want all party members to be great in all situations.

That's not to say I don't think they should be able to solve the same problem effectively. If they need to free a prisoner the rogue could do it stealthily, the bard socially or the fighter through combat. The wizard could probably do it either of those ways and a bunch more. Characters having options is good, but I don't think every character should have every option.

And to be clear, I do think non-casters generally need to be brought up more than casters need to be brought down. If we rate a fighter's effectiveness as a 2 and a wizard's as a 10, I'd probably want everyone to be like a 6 or a 7.

[Quertus]

I'm liking the ideas around "types" and "subtypes" - hopefully, 6e developers will take notes.

So, a(n)… "artificial/created" "controlled" "mindless" "non-biological" "ageless" "angelic" "outsider" "vermin"? For when my character creates angelic butterflies to "scout" for them (or just for decoration / ambiance).

-----

I'm not sure that it's a fundamental flaw of 3e, bit discussions of contribution and role might have some fundamental flaws of communication.

IMO, there's at least 3 (ok, 4) important points on the contribution continuum:

Didn't contribute. The dragon was flying. The undead were immune to mind control. The target made their save. Arrange was against you, and you missed every attack. Feel sad and ashamed.

Contributed. Share an ale with your mates, you were there and you helped.

Shone. That thin red mist used to be a Dragon. The former BBEG is now your BFF. You singlehandedly proved that combat healing is a valid strategy. You're awesome!

("Was actively detrimental" being the 4th)

IMO, most encounters, most PCs should feel that they "contributed". Occasionally, someone should "shine" - and it shouldn't always be the same person.

"Contributed" can cover a big range - how big and where that range should be can vary from table to table.

Anyway, point is, I think that there's some difficulty communicating what, exactly, people like and have problems with.

Personally, I generally prefer most people to contribute to most scenarios, with very rare shining (especially of the "solo" variety, that forces others to not contribute).

Once upon a time, the party was invited to dinner with (iirc) a beautiful, powerful NPC. The other players vied for positions closest to the NPC at the long table. Once they had all found their seats, Armus declared, "I'm glad everybody knows their place", and strode to the other head of the table. He opened negotiations with a "quiet, the adults are talking" tone. However, contrary to most parties (IME), where "Face" is (and, IME, generally should be) a "solo" role, Armus then directed the conversation to the things he knew others cared about, and handed the floor over to the other PCs. So, even though Armus got to shine, everyone got to participate.

And then there's my BDH party, where everyone shines all the time… until we have to talk to people, and then we scare otherwise friendly allies with stories of how we "waded through <whatever> like they were human", and our general bloodstained, gore-encrusted aesthetic.

Regardless of system, IME, the class of being most likely to be a spotlight hog is those who want to "scout".

/Rambling comments to demonstrate a vocabulary that I hope may add clarity to the conversation.

[NigelWalmsley]

Side note, but Tome of Battle actually did come with such a statement. Can't remember the exact page, but the rule is that any PrC that doesn't explicitly state otherwise fully progresses initiator level.

That's not full progression. I mean getting maneuvers and stances as well, just as various casting PrCs are backwards, forwards, and sideways compatible with various casting base classes. Ordained Champion progresses Shugenja, despite the fact that I am quite confident that the author of neither of those pieces of material was thinking about the other. That's the kind of compatibility I mean. Once again, casters get the nice thing and everyone else gets screwed.


Compare it to theoretical Shadow Walk from your example earlier - it travels much slower, and the ability to lead an army through might be useful occasionally, but in general, it would only be used as long as you don't have access to Teleport, and wouldn't replace it.

Why should "you and your friends need to get to the other side of the continent right now" be any more common than "you need to get your army into position quickly"? Most adventures don't actually have that many opportunities to use Teleport to significant effect. It's not like a standard dungeon delve involves repeatedly jaunting around over most of a continent. And we can easily imagine other niches beyond "moves an army" where things could be superior to Teleport. Maybe Shadow Jaunt is an at-will ability. Maybe it allows you to send people to multiple destinations. Maybe it's more reliable for visiting new places. Maybe it's harder to detect. Maybe you can drop in and out of shadow travel on a single casting. Maybe it's simply lower level.


There can be things that are too good to be the baseline.

Sure. But equally, there's also a point where a challenge stops mattering. If Teleport really is the absolute best solution to travel, then you can just stick Teleport at whatever level "the thing is really far away" is no longer supposed to be a meaningful challenge. Again, no one objects that there are 5th level spells that completely obviate 1st level combat challenges like "a wolf" or "three goblins".


That's not to say I don't think they should be able to solve the same problem effectively.

That still seems like a distinction without a difference. What exactly makes a "situation" different from a "problem"?

[Batcathat]

That still seems like a distinction without a difference. What exactly makes a "situation" different from a "problem"?

Perhaps I could have explained it better. By "problem" I mean, well, a problem and by type of situation I basically mean the different ways of solving a problem. A social type of situation, a stealthy type of situation, a violent type of situation, etc.

So in the example from my last post the problem was constant, but the characters could get into different type of situations trying to solve the problem (the rogue sneaking, bard socializing, etc.) and as I explained earlier I don't think it's a good thing that a caster can pull a spell out of their ass for any occasion. Again, characters having options is good, but I don't think every character should have every option.


In my example all of the characters had a way to try and solve the problem and I think that should be the general rule but I don't mind situations where some characters are less capable, even helpless, as long as the adventure is varied enough for all characters to get their chance to shine.

I'm sure it's not the way everyone wants to play the game but it is at least one potential answer to your earlier question about why some people want to take a few of the casters many, many toys away.

[Zanos]

That's a weakness that's far more easy to mitigate than Shadow Walk's speed. Scry and Fry isn't a meme for no reason. There's also Teleport Without Error, though it is a higher-level spell.
Greater teleport is 13th level for wizards and does remove almost all the limitations, but that's four levels up. At 9th, when you get teleport, how are you getting vision of an unknown area? Maybe you could roll a knowledge check or something to know about someone who lives there who has a terrible will save and scry them, or something? That might help you teleport to a city, but that doesn't help you get to the dungeon of despair(TM).

[Elves]

Side note, but Tome of Battle actually did come with such a statement. Can't remember the exact page, but the rule is that any PrC that doesn't explicitly state otherwise fully progresses initiator level.

I checked -- it looks like there's a vague statement that could be interpreted that way in Chapter 3, but it's not primary rules text, just a pointer to Chapter 5 where it's clear that only initiating classes advance IL. I was ready to be surprised though.

[PoeticallyPsyco]

I checked -- it looks like there's a vague statement that could be interpreted that way in Chapter 3, but it's not primary rules text, just a pointer to Chapter 5 where it's clear that only initiating classes advance IL. I was ready to be surprised though.

Hmm, it's definitely more vague than I remembered, but I think from context it's talking about all prestige classes, not just those in ToB. For starters, it's not in the prestige class chapter, it's in the chapter on how initiators work in general. Specifically, the section on calculating initiator level and how that works with multiclass characters, and they were clearly weren't just forgetting or not talking about non-ToB stuff because the preceding sentence is


This process applies to all of a character’s levels, whether
they are in martial adept classes or other classes.

Prestige classes work a little differently. In most cases, you
add the full prestige class level to your martial adept level to
determine your initiator level.

That sure sounds like it's referring to all prestige classes, ToB and otherwise.

On the other hand, it is immediately followed by a reference to Chapter 5: Prestige Classes.


In most cases, you
add the full prestige class level to your martial adept level to
determine your initiator level. See the prestige class descrip-
tions in Chapter 5 for details.

So yeah, there's two ways of reading the section. The first is that it's rules text, with a reference to Chapter 5 for completeness' sake. The second is that it's just a summary of how the prestige classes in Chapter 5 work, and not a general rule.

I started this post pretty firmly convinced of the first interpretation, but after going over it with a proverbial fine-toothed comb, I'm closer to 50/50, maybe 45/55.