Intent/Spirit of 3.5?

[RagnaroksChosen]

So I was reading a review of Pathfinder (Here) and it got me thinking I know that Pazio was trying to make 3.75. As I know a lot of people even here are trying there hand at it (Fax specifically comes to mind). I here the term "there going against the spirit of 3.5" and creating radically different game then what d&d is.
It seems hard to me to make fixes for a game that the company that created it can seem to agree on how things work.

I understand that no System is perfect and that there will always be tweeks done by each gaming group.

I guess what I'm asking is the following:
What would a company have to do to gain your trust about making a 3.5 update?
What are your opinions of the ones out there?
Is there a List or a thread on some forum with a general list on agreed on issues with 3.5 ?( i know that is subjective but i mean a few things can be generaly agreed on. Monks aren't great, Wizards > sorcerers)
I know the class Tier system is held in great regard here and on other sites as well.

Any ways was thinking about this stuff and wanted to here others opinions.

[Eloel]

What would a company have to do to gain your trust about making a 3.5 update?

An almost (if not fully) overhaul of the magic system.

What are your opinions of the ones out there?

Most are good, but don't cover the whole system, which drastically reduces choices.

Is there a List or a thread on some forum with a general list on agreed on issues with 3.5 ?( i know that is subjective but i mean a few things can be generaly agreed on. Monks aren't great, Wizards > sorcerers)
I know the class Tier system is held in great regard here and on other sites as well.

Well, the tier list, and the balancing of it is the main thing. Either the uses of skills need to be buffed good, or the spell system's versatility should be drastically reduced. Vancian casting is a good alternative to the system most RPGs are using, mana points. But the effectiveness should be reduced, either by good enough drawbacks, nerfed spells, or something...

[ericgrau]

Not much is generally agreed on, and what is isn't specified. You'd have to search thread after thread and keep notes, crossing off anything that hits significant disagreement. What's worse is that some complaints are merely popular in these forums in this particular year; you'd have to search archives of this and other forums to be sure. Other ideas tend to travel from forum to forum, so then you'd have to review offline people to be sure you're finding an idea with general agreement and not something people say b/c it was popular in some forum and then spread to others.

My suggestion is to ditch opinion and only address a handful of severe, quantifiable problems. If it can't be measured with a number and compared to another number then don't touch it. Beyond that you might as well start over and make your own new system.

I realize such a project is still rather involved b/c you actually have to prove something needs changing rather than "some people tend to have a lot of problems with this" (while others might experience the opposite), but when you compare it to analyzing opinions of every group out there and trying to please everyone - like Paizo failed to do - it's far less work.

[Dr_Emperor]

your answers in order

1. Fix most of the worst problems in a mechanically simple way that doesn't change much, I don't like complete class rewrites. They would also have to add something unique, interesting, and balanced to get money.

2. I actually use pathfinder Beta's fixes for spells and some of its shrunken skill lists, so from the fixes I see a hodgepodge of good ideas that I agree with.

3. I think peoples lists of problems vary greatly, most think alter self et. all are broken, some think knock is

Implied tier system is impossible to get away from on message boards, I tried, but 1 of its suggested fixes is if playing a power class buff is actually quite playable. Actually building characters together and making sure you don't step on the other members toes to much helps a lot too. Basically if you have a good spirit of cooperation in your group and not competition 3.5's problems aren't really there.

[RagnaroksChosen]

Not much is generally agreed on, and what is isn't specified. You'd have to search thread after thread and keep notes, crossing off anything that hits significant disagreement. What's worse is that some complaints are merely popular in these forums in this particular year; you'd have to search archives of this and other forums to be sure. Other ideas tend to travel from forum to forum, so then you'd have to review offline people to be sure you're finding an idea with general agreement and not something people say b/c it was popular in some forum and then spread to others.

My suggestion is to ditch opinion and only address a handful of severe, quantifiable problems. If it can't be measured with a number and compared to another number then don't touch it. Beyond that you might as well start over and make your own new system.

I realize such a project is still rather involved b/c you actually have to prove something needs changing rather than "some people tend to have a lot of problems with this" (while others might experience the opposite), but when you compare it to analyzing opinions of every group out there and trying to please everyone - like Paizo failed to do - it's far less work.

I guess a list of quantifiable issues is really what im looking for. I know some of the issues are fluff related. I am specifically talking mechanical wise, so there for should be quantifiable.

[ericgrau]

Well the biggest complaint - casters vs. non-casters - is difficult to quantify since their abilities are so different. As for other things, I really wish people would use some numbers instead of so many opinions. I've run numbers on some things that were easier to test and found them to be exceptionally well balanced in spite of people's opinions. But then there are special abilities and what not that are much harder to test and who knows if they are or not.

[erikun]

What would a company have to do to gain your trust about making a 3.5 update?

I feel that the basic mechanics of D&D 3.5 have inherit flaws, and as such, as appropriate "fix" for 3.5 would be a system possibly very different from the core ruleset. I realize I'm probably in a minority here, so any ruleset fix for 3.5 which I would prefer would probably not interest a large number of fans (because it is so vastly non-3.5) or would be better as an entirely new ruleset.

What are your opinions of the ones out there?

Eberron is an example of a "fluff update" for 3.5. Eberron took several concepts which were new with the 3.5e system - such as the easier item creation, variable monster alignment, and simpler planar travel - and used it to create the setting.

Homebrews, such as Fax's, are taking the existing ruleset and re-writing feats and classes to work within the existing system.

Pathfinder took a complete re-write of the basic ruleset, thus making it technically incompatable with existing 3.5 products. However, it is (apparently) similar enough that conversions can be made easily.

Is there a List or a thread on some forum with a general list on agreed on issues with 3.5?

There are two things I see as the "big" problems with 3.5.

1.) The tier system, as already mentioned, making some classes vastly more capable of dealing with anything which may happen. Fighters (who can just hit stuff) are worse than Rogues (who can hit stuff and rely on skills) who are worse than Wizards.

2.) D&D's focus on combat. In most other roleplaying games I've seen, being able to sneak in-sneak out, or able to talk to people and gather information, are just as effective as swordfighting.

[Fax Celestis]

*subscribes to the thread*

I'll be watching this. <_<

[Darcand]

I imagine that alot of the complaints which players have about Paizo's 3.75 are extremely similiar to complaints made when WotC bought TSR and revamped AD&D into 3rd edition. An alteration of some basics while still keeping the general shape the same that actually turned out to be an improvement.

[Sstoopidtallkid]

I imagine that alot of the complaints which players have about Paizo's 3.75 are extremely similiar to complaints made when WotC bought TSR and revamped AD&D into 3rd edition. An alteration of some basics while still keeping the general shape the same that actually turned out to be an improvement.

They nerfed the 2 best core Fighter feats and made Wizards better. Not to mention the fact that Humans got a boost over other races and Bards were both rendered weaker and unable to use a good chunk of the splatbook feats. Their game is as poorly balanced as 3.5, I prefer the Eberron fluff, and it's not easily backwards-compatible. Why would I switch?

[Gralamin]

An update for 3.5 should fix the rules without making a drastically different system. That's it. Fax's D20r is a good example

[Pharaoh's Fist]

I imagine that alot of the complaints which players have about Paizo's 3.75 are extremely similiar to complaints made when WotC bought TSR and revamped AD&D into 3rd edition. An alteration of some basics while still keeping the general shape the same that actually turned out to be an improvement.

Are Fighters still screwed by a Solid Fog or Grease spell as much as they were under 3.5 edition rules?

If yes, then back to the drawing board!

[Ravens_cry]

Forgive this newbie, but why is balance so darn well important? I agree that every character should feel useful, contributing to the party. But Dungeons and Dragons is not primarily player verses player, but player's verses enviroment.
In PvP, balance is all important because the idea is to win by beating other players, and so skill of said player should be the only consideration. In PvE, winning is much fuzzier. There will be goals, but it will be a team effort. As long as each player is contributing to that goal, all is well in my view. There is no win condition. I agree 3.5 has issues with contribution balance, but too much of a obsession with balance, in my view, implies too much sameness.

[Pharaoh's Fist]

Forgive this newbie, but why is balance so darn well important? I agree that every character should feel useful, contributing to the party. But Dungeons and Dragons is not primarily player verses player, but player's verses enviroment.
In PvP, balance is all important because the idea is to win by beating other players, and so skill of said player should be the only consideration. In PvE, winning is much fuzzier. There will be goals, but it will be a team effort. As long as each player is contributing to that goal, all is well in my view. There is no win condition. I agree 3.5 has issues with contribution balance, but too much of a obsession with balance, in my view, implies too much sameness.

The BBEG should be able to be either a monster or a villian with PC levels. Or both, such as a Lich. If your party faces a Lich of CR 12 with ten levels in wizard and he can make your group's melee characters useless with one 4th level spell, there's a problem with the balance between the classes that affects the player vs environment conflict that you want.

Under the current system, you just can't have the BBEG be an evil wizard. He'll know the party is coming and trounce it hard, unless you've gone to extraordinary lengths to prepare counters...

[Zore]

Ok two hypothetical characters

A Druid who can melee, cast 9th level spells and just for kicks has an animal companion who operates as roughly half a character.

A Fighter who can do one of those things, and the weakest to boot.


At high levels pure fighters start to become an active liability and resource drain for that PVE party. Someone should not be penalized for not playing a spellcaster. A Fighter can contribute, but a Druid can actually handle an encounter by himself that four fighters could not handle.

And balance does not have to be perfect, but everyone should have some way of meaningfully contributing. No one should be forced to rely on having other classes buff them to jack them from 'Totally ineffective' to 'kinda-sorta threatening'. Fighters should in some way be able to contribute in a way Wizards can't or are inferior in.

[Pharaoh's Fist]

At high levels pure fighters start to become an active liability and resource drain for that PVE party. Someone should not be penalized for not playing a spellcaster. A Fighter can contribute, but a Druid can actually handle an encounter by himself that four fighters could not handle.

"What's that Lassie? Timmy's fallen down the old well?"

[imperialspectre]

What would a company have to do to gain your trust about making a 3.5 update?

The only way to make a 3.5 update that actually works in terms of balance and design is to subject every class to rigorous, scientific playtesting. That means Same Game Tests (pitting each class against a variety of even-CR encounters at various levels; if you're around a 50% success rate then you're where the CR system says every single class should be). That means PC-vs.-PC matches across power sources and party roles. And that means being willing to cut material that doesn't work.

What are your opinions of the ones out there?

Pathfinder has completely failed to fix any of the serious 3.5 balance problems. Their monk still sucks, their fighter got quantifiably less powerful, and wizards and sorcerers got a significant power boost. On top of that, they added a host of little changes to the system that are hard for experienced 3.5 players to keep track of. The few things they did well (consolidated skills, no multiclass XP penalty) were already houseruled by many, many people well before either Pathfinder or 4e.

Fax's d20r is really too early to call one way or the other, but what I've seen so far has a lot of merit. There are a lot of flavorful classes that appear to have reasonable mechanical capabilities. However, I'm not sure that he goes far enough in fixing some things, such as the wizard class.

Fax, are you using any kind of same-game or other rigorous playtesting? If you need help or info, I'd be glad to help you out however.

Trailblazer has next to no information that I've seen just yet. However, what I've seen so far doesn't really inspire much confidence, as the teasers might have had some good ideas but don't seem to offer a whole lot in the way of addressing basic game flaws. The caster level rule looked really interesting, though.

The Tome series is definitely the most systematic attempt to rebalance 3rd Edition D&D that's even partially published. That's a big strength, in my mind; unfortunately, the series has not been finished to date and is at this point reliant on community efforts to finish the last several Tomes. Also, the authors chose a balance point where most classes are expected to compete with well-built 3.5 full casters. While there are good reasons for that design choice, the fact remains that the result is a much more powerful set of classes and other character options than many people will be comfortable with using.

I'm not sufficiently familiar with any other extant projects to critique them.

Is there a List or a thread on some forum with a general list on agreed on issues with 3.5 ?( i know that is subjective but i mean a few things can be generaly agreed on. Monks aren't great, Wizards > sorcerers)

Sorcerers aren't necessarily weaker than wizards. The problem there is that wizards are incredibly flexible in their "build" for a specific period of time, making it almost impossible to nail them down.

I'm not sure that such a list exists. I can't recall ever seeing one. For a good set of minimal-change choices that should be in almost any 3.5 update, see Tidesinger's 3.51 house rules that apply to Test of Spite.

I know the class Tier system is held in great regard here and on other sites as well.

It's not exactly infallible. There's room for quite a lot of debate as to what classes belong where. However, there is something of a consensus regarding the merits of the tier system.

I imagine that alot of the complaints which players have about Paizo's 3.75 are extremely similiar to complaints made when WotC bought TSR and revamped AD&D into 3rd edition. An alteration of some basics while still keeping the general shape the same that actually turned out to be an improvement.

Just...no. First off, Pathfinder is nowhere near as big of a change as 2e -> 3e. It's not even close. Second, Pathfinder is not an improvement on 3.5, for the simple reason that it makes balance decisions that are objectively worse for the most part. There is no possible way to justify making wizards stronger and nerfing fighter abilities in the same book.

However, I'm not going to say anything more on the subject here; if you want to discuss Pathfinder either start a new thread here or check out the critique here.

[Pharaoh's Fist]

What would a company have to do to gain your trust about making a 3.5 update?

Employ the following as designers:

GitP
Emperor Tippy
Keld Denar
Talic
Tidesinger
Eldariel
Saph
Fax Celestas

BG
Kaelik
Sinfire Titan
Guyr Adamantine
Solo

Charop
sofawall
carnivore
Tleilaxu_Ghola
Caelic
LordofProcrastination
Khan the Destroyer (KHAAAAAN!)
Endarire
Temptest Stormwind
PhaedrusXY
RadicalTaoist
Surreal
Funny Slaughter

And Stephen Colbert.

[Mongoose87]

I feel that 3.5e's balance issues should really have been fixed by Obama by now. Why wasn't that in the stimulus package?

[Doc Roc]

Man, this is a broad question. You can see my general philosophy of minimal change at work in the ToS. In actual practice, I normally ban prepared casters, in addition to the 3.51 rules.

Edit: Mongoose, your sig makes me twitch each time I read it. :(

[Kaiyanwang]

Pathfinder has completely failed to fix any of the serious 3.5 balance problems. Their monk still sucks, their fighter got quantifiably less powerful, and wizards and sorcerers got a significant power boost. On top of that, they added a host of little changes to the system that are hard for experienced 3.5 players to keep track of. The few things they did well (consolidated skills, no multiclass XP penalty) were already houseruled by many, many people well before either Pathfinder or 4e.

A question: what makes you so sure to make this assumption? The complete game is not out, yet (at least in my country, if you have the book in your hand, apologies ).

Most of 3.5 problems weren't so evident at the moment it came out. Shouldn't we wait a little bit and give to PF a chance before throw it away?

See, maybe you are right. But still, this mindset seems to me fairly untimely.

[Nero24200]

I guess what I'm asking is the following:
What would a company have to do to gain your trust about making a 3.5 update?

Act with sense (Non of this "we fix this problem using this completely out-the-way-method). The simpilest solution to any problem is often the right one, and I think too many people forget that.

Act with a degree of professionalism. You want to be treated as a big-time game designer? Act like one. Don't bad mouth other companies or designs and (in the case of all D20 games) remember that at the end of the, you're using someone elses rules as a base.

What are your opinions of the ones out there?

Some are alright, but most seem to cateer to play-styles I don't like. Fax's, for instance, theres nothing really wrong with that, just doesn't suit my style. However, certain ones do throw me right off (Paizos), though this is also partly because both paizo and their fans can't seem to accept the possibility that there could be flaws.

If I'm going to go for a 3.5 update, I'd have to go for one that meets the above and cateers to my own play-style, though I don't see that being likely since theres alot I like/dislike that others might disagree with.

[bosssmiley]

So I was reading a review of Pathfinder (Here) and it got me thinking I know that Paizo was trying to make 3.75. As I know a lot of people even here are trying there hand at it (Fax specifically comes to mind). I here the term "they're going against the spirit of 3.5" and creating radically different game then what d&d is.

It seems hard to me to make fixes for a game that the company that created it can seem to agree on how things work.

I understand that no System is perfect and that there will always be tweaks done by each gaming group.

I guess what I'm asking is the following:
What would a company have to do to gain your trust about making a 3.5 update?

• Adopt the mantra: "simplify and add clarity".
  - No game system needs 20 types of bonuses.
  - Textwalls, page long stat blocks, formulae, cross-referencing between sources: all these things turn off the average paying punter (and these guys vastly outnumber the CharOp / numberfap internet optimizers).
• Show that they understand where the faults in the 3.X system actually are. They should understand before they ever put pen to paper why, where, and how the RAW breaks down.
• Show they have a clear vision of what they thing D&D should be about, how it should scale, and how certain options simply do not conceptually work beyond certain points.
• They should destruct test their game mechanics in a repeatable and mathematically provable manner.
• Hire Keith and Frank. The Gaming Den boys have a proven track record of making clean, functional mechanics intended to allow all characters to contribute to the fun at all levels.

What are your opinions of the ones out there?

• RAW D&D (d20 SRD): doesn't work as written. The learning curve can turn off casual gamers.
• Pathfinder (aka 3.P): talked a good fight, but the mechanics are too fiddly, and the designers failed in 2 of their 3 stated design aims.
• Tome Series (aka 3.T): incomplete. Earlier material not edited to gel with later. Amends the D&D world to fit with the mechanical facts of the SRD, rather than modelling classic (TSR-era) D&D.
• True 20 and Castles and Crusades: change enough to avoid infringing copyright (and confuse the newbie). Don't fix the fundamental flows of the system as written.
• E6 mod: models fantasy literature / swords-and-sorcery well. Lacks the Nietzschean power worship of SRD D&D.
• Diminutive d20: uses a stripped down version of the SRD to model old-school D&D play. Simplifies and adds clarity at the cost of optimisation potential - something which some new-style players will resent.
• Satyr's Serpents & Sewers mod: interesting. Attempts to break character options down into a classless system ("Heresy!"). Too involved for some tastes, just right for others.

Is there a List or a thread on some forum with a general list on agreed on issues with 3.5 ?( i know that is subjective but i mean a few things can be generaly agreed on. Monks aren't great, Wizards > sorcerers)
I know the class Tier system is held in great regard here and on other sites as well.

Disregard the hivemind. It has a tendency to form an unthinking brayherd behind the current orthodoxy, regardless of whether said orthodoxy is actually correct or not (*cough* ENWorld *cough*). The 'wisdom of crowds' only takes one person with provable truth to bring it crashing to a mindless, gabbling, nerdrage-spewing halt.

The class tiers orthodoxy in particular is the kind of over-elaborate fanwank that distracts people from fixing the real problems with the game.

I really never got the point of that "tier system" anyway. In an abstract sense it is literally impossible to rate the classes as the Highest of the High or the Lowest of the Low. There are three "tiers" for reasonable people. NPC Classes, Classes that Cannot Pull Weight, and Classes that Can Pull weight. I think that further subdividing is pointless; hell, the NPC classes thing is only marginally its own league.
-- Akula, The Gaming Den

[Killer Angel]

Forgive this newbie, but why is balance so darn well important? I agree that every character should feel useful, contributing to the party. But Dungeons and Dragons is not primarily player verses player, but player's verses enviroment.
In PvP, balance is all important because the idea is to win by beating other players, and so skill of said player should be the only consideration. In PvE, winning is much fuzzier. There will be goals, but it will be a team effort. As long as each player is contributing to that goal, all is well in my view. There is no win condition. I agree 3.5 has issues with contribution balance, but too much of a obsession with balance, in my view, implies too much sameness.

D&D shouldn't be measured on a PvP scale, but the real problem is exactly when you consider PCs Vs Enviroment.
A pure meleer could be fine, lookin' the spellcasters doing cool things, if only he were the king of the fight. Sadly, the spellcaster have tons of options to render the meleers almost useless also in what is supposed to be their field. It's sad to be largely surpassed by the other pcs in your only little niche of competence, expecially if outside of combat you cannot contribute at all.
THIS is the problem.
Luckily, this is often a moot point, 'cause many groups play D&D the way it was intended by the "playtesters": sorcerers with fireball, clerics that heals in combat, etc., and the big holes of the rules don't show.

[The Rose Dragon]

What would a company have to do to gain your trust about making a 3.5 update?

A company actually did a great 3.5 update before 3rd Edition came out.

You may know it as Unisystem, the rules behind the games All Flesh Must Be Eaten, Witchcraft, Ghosts of Albion and Buffy the Vampire Slayer RPG.

[RagnaroksChosen]

ericgrau: Do you have any of those numbers or what have you crunched that people are saying differently on.
You don't need to post your results Im just curious what tests you have run.

Eirkun:
2.) I disagree. I think d20 is great for skill based encounters. Especially infiltration.
I believe that the ability for it to be sneak in sneak out is up to the GM really. Can you
provide evidence that it is not capable of doing that?

Fax Celestis:
Please do... I find your work interesting. I like it. I don't know if i would use it...
I'm a bit of a minimalist when i run games. (as far as abilities go)


Nero24200:
Hmm Dealing with Play-styles is a pain for a developer especially because they have to cater
to a few different play styles.


Bosssmiley:
Can you please explain "...page long stat blocks, formula, cross-referencing between sources: all these things turn off the average
paying punter (and these guys vastly outnumber the CharOp / numberfap internet optimizers)"
I understand the text walls but can you show an example of the rest as im not following?

Also regarding the tier system. You think it pulls away from the Real problems?
I agree with the simplified version that Akula mentioned but i think that the tier system helps
get deeper into the issues.. though i agree there is a ton of room for debate especially the mid tiers

[Telonius]

What would a company have to do to gain your trust about making a 3.5 update?

Playtest and gather opinions beforehand. You have an army of millions of nerds who are ready, willing, and able to find the most obscure breaking points in any system and suggest fixes for them. For free. If you are a game company and don't take advantage of this fact and use it in your product development, you are a halfwit and whatever system you come up with will not be worth my time and money.

What are your opinions of the ones out there?

Pathfinder was a decent attempt, but it didn't really fix the biggest issues. It was an improvement - a marginal improvement, but an improvement - in some areas. It seemed like it tried to do what I suggested in the previous example, but missed the big stuff. Some of the homebrew rules (such as the homebrew forum on this site) can be quite good, but not very many of them are system fixes. FaxCelestis has a full-fledged system reboot in the works, and there were a few attempts at an exhaustive spell-fixing effort a while ago, but that's about it.

Is there a List or a thread on some forum with a general list on agreed on issues with 3.5 ?( i know that is subjective but i mean a few things can be generaly agreed on. Monks aren't great, Wizards > sorcerers)

This is the internet. Nobody agrees on anything here.

[Kaihaku]

The strongest two themes I've heard over the months are...

• "Fix it the way I would fix."
• "Don't try to make money off of it."

That said, there is another theme that lacks the volume of the first two but with which I actually agree, basically it's "address the core balance issues in ways that leave '3.75' 90% compatible with 3.5."

[Kaiyanwang]

This is the internet. Nobody agrees on anything here.

I respectfully disagree.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

I think a 3e update should take quite a bit of inspiration from 1e and 2e. No, not THAC0 and nonweapon proficiencies and weapon speed and suchlike--not even a combination of mindrape and dominate person could convince me to advocate that.

I'm thinking instead of things like faster character creation, much less of an emphasis on the grid, simplicity of bonus types, easier-to-resist magic, multiple attacks only for the martial types, and so on. Many of 3e's problems stem from WotC ripping these things out in the transition; the classes were much more balanced when the casters couldn't insta-gank fighters with a single SoD unless the fighter crit-failed, combat was faster when you didn't have to worry about the minutiae of squares and AoOs, buffing and dispelling and attacks and such were much easier when you didn't have to add or subtract tons of little modifiers from a dozen bonuses, and so on. If an update improved defenses across the board, removed squares and replaced AoOs with floating immediate attacks or similar, cut down on the bonus type bloat/spell redundancy/etc., and just generally cleaned up and tightened the core mechanics, I'd be happy.