Is there a consolidated list of problems with 3.5/PF1?

[Cortillaen]

Quick background for those interested:
Recently I've been solidifying ideas for both an alternative spellcasting system and an alternative class system that could fit into either of 3.5 or PF1. Regarding classes, I found myself wondering about changes to ever more things until I ended up at "Maybe I should just try building a fresh system instead of trying to shoehorn things into an existing one". And eh, why not? I know it's a colossal undertaking and unlikely to actually get completed, but it's not like I'm doing anything with these remaining shreds of sanity.

My general aim is something based on 3.5/PF1 and that has a similar feel in the sense of highly customizable character building with lots of high-impact options. I'm all for keeping those elements that work, but I'm not as concerned with maintaining the existing math models or even some of the sacred cows if they cause problems (looking at you, spell levels & slots).
I've got quite a bit of PF1 experience but very little with 3.5, and I'd like to get more perspectives on what people find to be broken, clumsy, overcomplicated, and otherwise bad in each system. Are there any threads consolidating discussions of such problems into a list? I've tried searching here and a couple other places but haven't had any success finding threads like that, probably on account of the incredibly generic search terms involved.

[martixy]

Given that opinions on what actually counts as a "problem" vary widely, no, there is no such list. At best someone might have a personal list of pet peeves.

But why create a list of problems, when you can create a list of solutions?

This is widely known as homebrewing the game. I myself have a long list house rules to address what I consider problems or misalignments with my vision of the game.

[gijoemike]

That would be a very very long list.


So I will give you my top pet peeve.

Planned Feat Requirements for prestige class entry/advancement of PC. Feats are precious, yet they are wasted on PresCls entry tax. And that tax has to be budgeted out 3 or 6 levels in advance. PF archtypes are better but can sometime be mixed and matched and there are now way too many.

Instead have a permanent choice be made at lvls 5, lvl 10, and lvl 15 that advance your character in the class in a specific direction. 5th Ed has the subtype choice at level 3, which I feel is too early. And then nothing for 17 more levels. eg. have a paladin choose between cavalier, sworn defender, and Justicar at lvl 5, then have 3 more and different choices at lvl 10 like hospitailar, Champion of the People, and Purifier. Finally end with the choice made at 15 that is super awesome. Avatar of Good, Invoker of Holy Wrath, Hope's Answer.

No choice is dependent on any previous choice. Neither Feats nor skills are requirements.

[Quertus]

That would be a very very long list.


So I will give you my top pet peeve.

Planned Feat Requirements for prestige class entry/advancement of PC. Feats are precious, yet they are wasted on PresCls entry tax. And that tax has to be budgeted out 3 or 6 levels in advance. PF archtypes are better but can sometime be mixed and matched and there are now way too many.

Instead have a permanent choice be made at lvls 5, lvl 10, and lvl 15 that advance your character in the class in a specific direction. 5th Ed has the subtype choice at level 3, which I feel is too early. And then nothing for 17 more levels. eg. have a paladin choose between cavalier, sworn defender, and Justicar at lvl 5, then have 3 more and different choices at lvl 10 like hospitailar, Champion of the People, and Purifier. Finally end with the choice made at 15 that is super awesome. Avatar of Good, Invoker of Holy Wrath, Hope's Answer.

No choice is dependent on any previous choice. Neither Feats nor skills are requirements.

I'll second this, but…

… bit only if you're willing to slaughter the sacred cow of the build.

One of the *good* things about 3e is how everything is an independent widget. "Arcane Archer" isn't a subclass of "Ranger" - you can add it to a Druid, if you like. Mystic Theurge isn't a subclass - you add it to two arbitrary casting classes.

So, before you leap to fix this, decide for yourself which parts of it are broken.

Good luck!

[Elves]

Looking for a list of problems is meaningless until you've defined what you want the game to be. Then look for what doesn't contribute to that.

[GeoffWatson]

Everything.
You'd be hard-pressed to find something in 3rd edition that nobody has complained about.

[Biggus]

That would be a very very long list.


It certainly would. Here are a couple of such lists:

Overpowered/highly abusable stuff (spoilered in second post under "fix and ban list"): https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?124216-The-Test-of-Spite-3-51

Rules that don't work or don't make sense (runs to about 300 pages): https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?267985-Completely-Dysfunctional-Handbook-3-5

[malloc]

Quick background for those interested:
Recently I've been solidifying ideas for both an alternative spellcasting system and an alternative class system that could fit into either of 3.5 or PF1. Regarding classes, I found myself wondering about changes to ever more things until I ended up at "Maybe I should just try building a fresh system instead of trying to shoehorn things into an existing one". And eh, why not? I know it's a colossal undertaking and unlikely to actually get completed, but it's not like I'm doing anything with these remaining shreds of sanity.

My general aim is something based on 3.5/PF1 and that has a similar feel in the sense of highly customizable character building with lots of high-impact options. I'm all for keeping those elements that work, but I'm not as concerned with maintaining the existing math models or even some of the sacred cows if they cause problems (looking at you, spell levels & slots).
I've got quite a bit of PF1 experience but very little with 3.5, and I'd like to get more perspectives on what people find to be broken, clumsy, overcomplicated, and otherwise bad in each system. Are there any threads consolidating discussions of such problems into a list? I've tried searching here and a couple other places but haven't had any success finding threads like that, probably on account of the incredibly generic search terms involved.

Have you looked at Spheres of Power for PF1? I think that's a well-done, compelling system.

[Elves]

Rules that don't work or don't make sense (runs to about 300 pages): https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?267985-Completely-Dysfunctional-Handbook-3-5
Great thread idea, but looks basically unusable because it makes no separation between actual dysfunctions and things where someone felt the mechanics either don't precisely fit the fluff text or don't work the way they want (including something that is simply a bad option).

Some also seem based on wrong readings.

It would be useful to have an update to that thread that was more laser focused.

[Cortillaen]

Given that opinions on what actually counts as a "problem" vary widely, no, there is no such list. At best someone might have a personal list of pet peeves.

But why create a list of problems, when you can create a list of solutions?
I agree that this is largely a matter of opinion, but I rather doubt a list of pet peeves is the "best" we can get. There are no doubt some things that are widely agreed to be ill-crafted or outright broken. Things like the martial/caster disparity, feat taxes and bloated feat trees, and Truenamers.

As for why gather a list of problems... well, try finding solutions before you have defined the problems and let me know how that goes.


Planned Feat Requirements for prestige class entry/advancement of PC. Feats are precious, yet they are wasted on PresCls entry tax. And that tax has to be budgeted out 3 or 6 levels in advance. PF archtypes are better but can sometime be mixed and matched and there are now way too many.
Agreed that feat prereqs often end up as useless taxes. My ideas for an alternative class system somewhat resemble the 3.5 system of assembling various PrCs on top of a base class or two in piecemeal fashion, so prereqs are a major topic of concern. However, I don't plan on doing a Fire Emblem-esque class tree, if that is what you are proposing (apologies if I just misunderstand you). I think prereqs are still useful to have, but maybe fewer and less onerous ones are needed. My thinking is that if a class is so powerful that it needs to be shackled by wasteful prereqs, it just needs some nerfing instead (or maybe everything else needs buffed).


One of the *good* things about 3e is how everything is an independent widget. "Arcane Archer" isn't a subclass of "Ranger" - you can add it to a Druid, if you like. Mystic Theurge isn't a subclass - you add it to two arbitrary casting classes.

So, before you leap to fix this, decide for yourself which parts of it are broken.
Absolutely agree on the lego nature of classes. Assembling a build out of pieces that are not strict progressions is something I really want to preserve. I'm just not conceited enough to think I've got THE correct perspective on what is and isn't broken, so perusing the accumulation of past debates would be useful.


Overpowered/highly abusable stuff (spoilered in second post under "fix and ban list"):

Rules that don't work or don't make sense (runs to about 300 pages):
Thanks, those both look pretty useful. I just wish there was something similar for broader, system-level issues instead of just specific instances of "this feature cannot work because of this rule" and the like.


Looking for a list of problems is meaningless until you've defined what you want the game to be. Then look for what doesn't contribute to that.
I have to dispute that claim (unless you mean "defined what you want the game to be" to be satisfied by something as vague as "a fantasy game taking cues from 3.5/PF1"). Knowing what caused problems for people in the previous system is essential to designing a new generation (whether an actual iteration or merely inspired by the previous), even at the conceptual level. Spellcasting is a perfect example: the design of spell levels & slots is the root of a lot of balancing problems for 3.5/PF1, and later systems like SF, 5e, and PF2e suffer various contortions and issues because they preserved that root problem. Knowing of a system-level issue like that is important to defining some of the broadest mechanics of a system.


Have you looked at Spheres of Power for PF1? I think that's a well-done, compelling system.
I've had it recommended to me by a few people. Haven't had time to read through it completely, but it's on my list of things to finish reading and consider (along with others like the Tome of Prowess and RoC's Combat Techniques).

[Biggus]

Thanks, those both look pretty useful. I just wish there was something similar for broader, system-level issues instead of just specific instances of "this feature cannot work because of this rule" and the like.


I don't know of any such list for structural problems, but here are a couple of pages you might want to have a look at:

https://www.enworld.org/threads/the-problems-with-3-5.222342/
https://tomasmcintee.medium.com/the-d-d-3rd-edition-balance-blunder-dbd2bacce986

[Kelb_Panthera]

Everything.
You'd be hard-pressed to find something in 3rd edition that nobody has complained about.

1000% this. You're asking an inherently subjective question that has no real answer beyond the handful of things that are outright non-functional broken like drown-healing.

In this thread alone I've already seen at least one answer that I wholeheartedly disagree with.

You're going to have to decide what you want out of a TTRPG and then you can get some more meaningful answers for what does and doesn't serve that end. Even then you're going to get a lot of opinion answers and you'll get nothing else before you do.

[NotInventedHere]

I mean, structurally speaking, there are people who consider the entire concept of 'classes' and 'levels' to be a fundamental flaw of the system. (And plenty of RPGs which manage to do without both entirely). If you're trying to build an entirely fresh system, you're probably going to be best off by playing, like.... a *lot* of games. Lots of different systems. Weird systems. *Really* weird. Play FATE, play Fiasco, play diceless stuff like Nobilis and Chuubo's, play Polaris: Chivalric Tragedy At Utmost North, play Dread (yes, the one with the Jenga tower). And take notes. Lots of notes.

(You might also want to read stuff like "Fantasy Heartbreakers (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/9/)" and David Prokopetz's various (https://prokopetz.tumblr.com/post/144513862257/laxor0519-smeagleeagle-prokopetz#notes) essays (https://prokopetz.tumblr.com/post/155021253567/why-did-the-guys-that-wrote-up-things-like-the-bag) on the ways that D&D editions differ in their fundamental understanding of what a role-playing game is and how one plays it.)

[Particle_Man]

So to get a little meta, one of the problems with 3.5 is that some of its books (like Tome of Battle: Book of 9 Swords) have no official errata (for example, because of some copy/paste error, the errata was overlaid with that of Complete Arcane, and it was never fixed), leaving us with various possible (and in the threads of various messageboards, actual) interpretations of what the rules "should be" to be fixed, but no canonical answer.

That said, at least with part of 3.5 and with most/all of PF1, they are OGL, so if someone wishes to come up with a "fixed" version, and publish it, they are free to do so (so long as they obey the OGL license agreement), and then see if it catches on and becomes popular enough to become the new canon for a new game.

[martixy]

I agree that this is largely a matter of opinion, but I rather doubt a list of pet peeves is the "best" we can get. There are no doubt some things that are widely agreed to be ill-crafted or outright broken. Things like the martial/caster disparity, feat taxes and bloated feat trees, and Truenamers.

You would stand to be quite surprised then, Mr./Ms. Cortillaen.

Case in point, my views on the caster/martial issue are significantly deviant from (if you'll permit me to speculate) your likely perceived community consensus on the topic.
Feat taxes, I agree are bad design. But bloated feat trees once again turn into a matter of perspective.

[Elves]

The baseline is that running into this with "I'm going to solve the problems everyone agrees on and make a better 3e" is a doomed approach that will end up in the mass of dead heartbreakers before. "I have specific gameplay goals I want to achieve that 3.x doesn't satisfy" could end up in something worth playing.

[Jay R]

The consolidated list of problems in D&D 3.5 is published in several volumes. It begins with these three:

Player's Handbook
Monster Manual
Dungeon Master's Guide

Several supplemental volumes of the list of problems in D&D have been published as well.