What are the major problems in 3.5?

[Eloi]

What are the major problems in 3.5 edition rule set as a whole, and to be even more specific with that, what major problems of 3.5 aren't fixed by Pathfinder?

[Keld Denar]

Test of Spite Banlist

2nd post. Its long.

[Endarire]

WotC has sporatically supported it.

[Thrice Dead Cat]

The link already partially covered it, but casters > noncasters. Being able to rewrite both reality and your abilities per day is strong while sucking on lesser and lesser feat choices as you continue is not.

[Eldan]

In a more general fashion, and going mostly by core, as that is what Pathfinder is concerned with:

Quadratic Wizards, Linear Fighters

While on low levels, non-caster archetypes and caster archetypes, to use a broader term, are roughly average. However, as one approaches middle levels, one of the main problems in the system becomes apparent: the wizard gains new spells of greater and greater power, every single one of which is not only a new combat option, but also a stronger combat option than before. The fighter, meanwhile, gains comparably little benefit from leveling: a point of base attack, a few hit points, better saves, feats from time to time. To make the strengths equivalent, the following would have to be true: one fighter feat would have to be as strong as all the new spells the wizard gains from level 19 to 20, which clearly is not true.

Spells break the game, and hard:

Even on lower levels, casters can emulate all the other party roles: a level 3 rogue can not possibly have as much utility as a caster, but the level 3 wizard has invisibility, detect secret doors, silence and knock. He also has Bull's Strength, Alter Self and Enlarge person, making him potentially the better fighter than the fighter, if he has time to prepare and is willing to go all-out.
On higher levels, things become much, much worse: unchecked, casters can create infinite resources quickly. They can become practically immune to death by Astral Projection, they can summon armies of creatures stronger than the rest of the party.

Non-casters lack options

This is, basically, the one that annoys me the most. I can cope with wizards being more powerful than fighters. What I can't cope with is fighters being so damn boring for half the game. They get no skills, they get no class abilities. They can't do anything special outside combat, while the caster has charms, illusions and divinations for fun off-time shenanigans. Even for combat, which should be their forté, they can learn two, three tricks over their career, mostly boiling down to "I hit him", "I hit him so he falls over" and "I run up to him and hit him extra hard."


For specific examples of overpowered spells, see test of spite.

[mikej]

What are the major problems in 3.5 edition rule set as a whole, and to be even more specific with that, what major problems of 3.5 aren't fixed by Pathfinder?

Why do you ask? As this topic has been done to death before.

As for problems not fixed by Pathfinder. Just look what options are available for the Pathfinder Fighter compared to the Wizard at ( Just top of my head ) both 17th level. Also don't get me started on my personal "hatred" of the Pathfinder revision of Druids.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

"Problems" is pretty general. I'd say Keld's link to the ToS banlist covers most of the truly broken and poorly worded combinations of content, but the system still has its general flaws beyond that. Of course, what I may view as a flaw, someone else may view as a great part of the system; once you go beyond the obvious stuff (the ToS banlist basically), it gets fuzzy.

1. The skill system, while good in concept, can be broken or abused in a variety of ways. On top of that, it's not very realistic due to the supporting d20 mechanic. Class skills as niche protection limits character customization (generally a plus of 3.5), and many classes just have woefully few skill points.

2. The game suffers large power imbalances, generally between casters and non-casters, especially at higher levels. Casters get options, non-casters don't, yadda yadda. I'm sure many, many people will beat this dead horse, so I'll move on.

3. Poorly playtested content takes the form of trap options or rules lawyer nightmares. Examples include the Truenamer, Monk, and Dodge for traps, and... well, look at the ToS banlist for the poorly worded garbage. Again, 3.5 has a wealth of options, but you better know what you're doing before taking one.

4. 4e gets all of WotC's support now, via errata and new content. It is by no means a dead system, but it is definitely a stagnant system.

I'm not a Pathfinder expert, but as far as I know (1) was improved, (2) made superficial changes, (3) isn't as noticeable because there just isn't as much content, and (4) is sort of moot because it's third party anyway, and presumably Paizo will support their own work.

[PId6]

Candle of Invocation. What in the world possessed them to keep that for Pathfinder is beyond me.

[Eloi]

Why do you ask? As this topic has been done to death before.

I haven't been here long enough to witness a topic like this.

So the complaint I'm hearing is 'high-level magic breaks the game' and 'the mages are too much of a swiss-army knife' and 'fighters don't have enough abilities'.
So, reduce them to spells that wouldn't infringe upon other classes usefulness, of those they have to be low-level, than take that list of low level spells, say Level 4-2 to Level 0 spells, and then give fewer spells per level. Would that balance them at all?
What are some of your ideas for fixes to the dynamic wizard and the linear warrior?

[Eloi]

1. The skill system, while good in concept, can be broken or abused in a variety of ways. On top of that, it's not very realistic due to the supporting d20 mechanic. Class skills as niche protection limits character customization (generally a plus of 3.5), and many classes just have woefully few skill points.

Would giving skill points by race instead of class solve this problem?

[PId6]

What are some of your ideas for fixes to the dynamic wizard and the linear warrior?

Just use ~Tier 2-3 classes like Beguiler, Sorcerer, Psion, Warblade, Factotum, etc. Ban the wizard. Ban the fighter (except for dips). Now everyone has cool gizmos, and nobody's too much more powerful than anyone else.

So, reduce them to spells that wouldn't infringe upon other classes usefulness, of those they have to be low-level, than take that list of low level spells, say Level 4-2 to Level 0 spells, and then give fewer spells per level.

You may as well just kill the class then. NPC adept is better than that.

[Eloi]

Just use ~Tier 2-3 classes like Beguiler, Sorcerer, Psion, Warblade, Factotum, etc. Ban the wizard. Ban the fighter (except for dips). Now everyone has cool gizmos, and nobody's too much more powerful than anyone else.

That sounds workable, pretty balanced. So just ban Tier >2 classes and Tier 3< classes and you'll be one step closer to fixing the game system. Hooray.

[Eldan]

I would use tier 3 and 4, actually, with tier 2 when appropriate (i.e. know your players).

Your suggested fix for the wizard has the problem that it doesn't solve the problem: if he really wants to, the wizard can break the game with three spells per day of different levels, one of them probably level 8 or 9, but not necessarily. He just has to become more resource efficient. The problem for him then becomes not that he is less powerful, just that he casts his three super-spells for the day, and then stands by for the rest of the time, while his summoned resources or automatic kill-traps do the rest.

It has been discussed several times on the boards and the consensus usually was: not the wizard class is broken, or less so thank people think. Instead, spells are broken. Meteor Swarm will rarely be a problem, but it's almost impossible to use the calling function of gate in any balanced way. To make the wizard a balanced class, half the spells would have to be rewritten.

Even then, casters, especially the sorcerer and wizard, have the possibility of filling a variety of roles, and even switching between them from day to day. A wizard can sit down with his spell book every morning and think to himself "do I want to blast today, or be an illusionist?" and then prepare spells accordingly. This is why people suggest the much narrower specialized caster classes: Beguiler, Warlock, Warmage, Dread Necromancer all have a much narrower party role and fluff niche.

[Eloi]

I would use tier 3 and 4, actually, with tier 2 when appropriate (i.e. know your players).

Your suggested fix for the wizard has the problem that it doesn't solve the problem: if he really wants to, the wizard can break the game with three spells per day of different levels, one of them probably level 8 or 9, but not necessarily. He just has to become more resource efficient. The problem for him then becomes not that he is less powerful, just that he casts his three super-spells for the day, and then stands by for the rest of the time, while his summoned resources or automatic kill-traps do the rest.

It has been discussed several times on the boards and the consensus usually was: not the wizard class is broken, or less so thank people think. Instead, spells are broken. Meteor Swarm will rarely be a problem, but it's almost impossible to use the calling function of gate in any balanced way. To make the wizard a balanced class, half the spells would have to be rewritten.

Even then, casters, especially the sorcerer and wizard, have the possibility of filling a variety of roles, and even switching between them from day to day. A wizard can sit down with his spell book every morning and think to himself "do I want to blast today, or be an illusionist?" and then prepare spells accordingly. This is why people suggest the much narrower specialized caster classes: Beguiler, Warlock, Warmage, Dread Necromancer all have a much narrower party role and fluff niche.

3&4 seem to have the most diversity yet balance, I agree.

Or maybe splitting the schools of magic into different classes, that way all schools of magic can be accounted for?

[PId6]

That sounds workable, pretty balanced. So just ban Tier >2 classes and Tier 3< classes and you'll be one step closer to fixing the game system. Hooray.

Allowing lower tier classes to exist isn't a problem, as long as newbies know to avoid them. Classes like rogue and barbarian can certainly be optimized to compete with higher tiers; you just need to be really good at it. They also happen to make good dips for Tier 3s (barbarian for pounce, fighter for feats, etc). There are some combos that rely on lower tier classes as well whose overall results are higher tier (Daring Outlaw for rogue/swashbuckler, Swift Hunter for ranger/scout, Tashalatora for Monk/Ardent). Even Tier 1 classes may be allowable as dips if you want (Cleric dip happens to be great for Swift Hunter builds, and a lot of other things).

[Eloi]

Allowing lower tier classes to exist isn't a problem, as long as newbies know to avoid them. Classes like rogue and barbarian can certainly be optimized to compete with higher tiers; you just need to be really good at it. They also happen to make good dips for Tier 3s (barbarian for pounce, fighter for feats, etc). There are some combos that rely on lower tier classes as well whose overall results are higher tier (Daring Outlaw for rogue/swashbuckler, Swift Hunter for ranger/scout, Tashalatora for Monk/Ardent). Even Tier 1 classes may be allowable as dips if you want (Cleric dip happens to be great for Swift Hunter builds, and a lot of other things).

Ah, the lower Tier classes could be the non-base classes, like you have the Tier 3&4 classes mentioned in the core rulebooks, and >3 tier classes mentioned in source books for builds.

[Eldan]

3&4 seem to have the most diversity yet balance, I agree.

Or maybe splitting the schools of magic into different classes, that way all schools of magic can be accounted for?

It's been discussed, yes, and seems a good idea. Generally, you can go by:

Beguiler: Enchanter, with a dash of illusionist, or more illusionist of focused on it.
Dread Necromancer: Necromancy
Warmage: Blaster. Note: not very good at his job, needs some help, perhaps.

If I remember correctly, I've also seen Summoner and Diviner classes homebrewed on these boards. Transmuters and Conjurors are probably a little more difficult, as these are very broad schools. (Did I miss any?)

I wouldn't just split the wizard in school classes: the wizard actually has barely any class features other than spells. Instead, I would go the way described above: look for a class with some interesting features other than spells, one for each role a mage can fill.

[Eloi]

It's been discussed, yes, and seems a good idea. Generally, you can go by:

Beguiler: Enchanter, with a dash of illusionist, or more illusionist of focused on it.
Dread Necromancer: Necromancy
Warmage: Blaster. Note: not very good at his job, needs some help, perhaps.

If I remember correctly, I've also seen Summoner and Diviner classes homebrewed on these boards. Transmuters and Conjurors are probably a little more difficult, as these are very broad schools. (Did I miss any?)

I wouldn't just split the wizard in school classes: the wizard actually has barely any class features other than spells. Instead, I would go the way described above: look for a class with some interesting features other than spells, one for each role a mage can fill.

There is just something wrong with Wizards, I think. The Tier 3&4 characters seem to have some magic, but not game-breakingly so. Which would make sense from a story-standpoint, as how can it be in medieval stasis if you have such a great ability to improve everything?

[PId6]

Ah, the lower Tier classes could be the non-base classes, like you have the Tier 3&4 classes mentioned in the core rulebooks, and >3 tier classes mentioned in source books for builds.

I'd suggest against making Tier 4s part of the baseline. They can be good if well-optimized, but most Tier 4s can be pretty bad if you don't know what you're doing. Rogue and Ranger can be powerful in the right hands, but that involves picking from 10 different sourcebooks to pull off.

Tier 3s tend to be much more beginner-friendly in comparison. Beguiler/Dread Necromancer have set spell lists so you'll never completely suck, while ToB classes are famously hard to screw up (though it's still possible). Interestingly, Tier 2s are easier to screw up than Tier 3s. Spell/power lists make or break the Sorcerers and (to a lesser extent) Psions.

So I guess "core" should be composed of ToB, school-based casters like Beguiler and Dread Necromancer, Duskblade, and Factotum. All of these are T3 classes that are beginner-friendly and powerful in their own right.

[Eloi]

I'd suggest against making Tier 4s part of the baseline. They can be good if well-optimized, but most Tier 4s can be pretty bad if you don't know what you're doing. Rogue and Ranger can be powerful in the right hands, but that involves picking from 10 different sourcebooks to pull off.

Tier 3s tend to be much more beginner-friendly in comparison. Beguiler/Dread Necromancer have set spell lists so you'll never completely suck, while ToB classes are famously hard to screw up (though it's still possible). Interestingly, Tier 2s are easier to screw up than Tier 3s. Spell/power lists make or break the Sorcerers and (to a lesser extent) Psions.

So I guess "core" should be composed of ToB, school-based casters like Beguiler and Dread Necromancer, Duskblade, and Factotum. All of these are T3 classes that are beginner-friendly and powerful in their own right.

So we're eliminating everything but T3, with T4-5 sidelined, T2 heavily surpressed, and T1 outright banned.
Hm..
Seems to work for me, I usually play a Bard (T3) anyway.

[Innis Cabal]

The players mostly.

[TK-Squared]

The players mostly.

Pretty much this.

[Eldan]

Well, yes.

If your players actively try to break the game, there's really not much you can do, even with excessive banning.

I was more talking from the standpoint of making a baseline on which a given group can then build their own guidelines, rules and agreements for their own game.

It's entirely possible to make a weak wizard, or a strong fighter. My first character ever was a wizard, starting out with sleep, mount, burning hands and, I think, floating disk. He also had 16 intelligence, but 20 dexterity because he was an elf and I wanted him to be a good archer, "because elves do that". Not a strong character by any means. Our druid asked if he could have cat form instead of bear form (i.e. tiny wildshape instead of large) because "bears make bad scouts".

Still: if the player knows what he is doing and is not gimping himself on purpose, he will have a hard time making a druid not overpowering the class.


As an aside, on the subject of medieval stasis: that's entirely subject to individual preferences. I don't actually like medieval stasis all that much, to me as a DM it's much more interesting to take the rules of a given game and see where they take me, setting-wise.

[PId6]

If your players actively try to break the game, there's really not much you can do, even with excessive banning.

Well, you can always ban the players.

[Eldan]

True. But if you do that too much, you end up without a group.

I mean, we were three people in our group back in school, DM included. If we banned anyone, we wouldn't have had a game. Even though one player played a monk called "The nameless one" and never talked much (neither the character nor ethe player spoke much, actually) and the other wanted to play something different every weekend (I made a bard this week! They are much cooler than my sorcerer last week, or the druid the week before! He's also a gnome who grew up with elves and hates dwarves!), all characters excessively silly.

[PersonMan]

Well, you can always ban the players.

DM: Alright, then. Here are my houserules. Read them and ask any questions you might have.
P1: Well...looks pretty good.
P2: You made the Monk better, I see...
P3: But what's with this banlist?
DM: Oh, yeah, I forgot. Players are banned in my games. Leave, all of you.
P1: But-!
DM: No buts. If you can't respect my houserules from Day 1 you're out.

[Eldan]

Player: can I be Co-DM, then?

[Eloi]

Well yes you could ban abusive players, but I was looking to make an outline for a major overhall to 3.5 whilst still being 3.5, and Pathfinder doesn't cut it. I think the banning of everything but Tier 3 would make the game more balanced, and I think not allowing players to acquire templates or be monster-races may solve some of the problems with that *coughcheesecough*. Basically, you pick a Core Race and then choose from Beguiler, Dread Necromancer, Crusader, Bard, Swordsage, Binder (without access to the summon monster vestige), Wildshape Varient Ranger, Duskblade, Factotum, Warblade, Psionic Warrior. Is that a fun change tho'? It'd make things more balanced for sure, but I'm unsure on the fun factor.

[PId6]

Well yes you could ban abusive players, but I was looking to make an outline for a major overhall to 3.5 whilst still being 3.5, and Pathfinder doesn't cut it. I think the banning of everything but Tier 3 would make the game more balanced, and I think not allowing players to acquire templates or be monster-races may solve some of the problems with that *coughcheesecough*. Basically, you pick a Core Race and then choose from Beguiler, Dread Necromancer, Crusader, Bard, Swordsage, Binder (without access to the summon monster vestige), Wildshape Varient Ranger, Duskblade, Factotum, Warblade, Psionic Warrior. Is that a fun change tho'? It'd make things more balanced for sure, but I'm unsure on the fun factor.

I'd say no. Part of the appeal of 3.5 is that there's so many options; cutting out most of the options makes me ask "Why not just go 4E then?" That's why I mostly operate under a "Don't break it and you can play it" policy.

And monster races usually mean obscenely nerfing yourself, not cheese (besides a few exceptions), due to the overtly high LA/RHD on most of them. And Core races are pretty bad as well; Dwarf and Human vastly outshine the other PHB races. Pathfinder actually did pretty well here IMO, making underused races much better (though unfortunately making Human even better in the process).

[Eloi]

I'd say no. Part of the appeal of 3.5 is that there's so many options; cutting out most of the options makes me ask "Why not just go 4E then?" That's why I mostly operate under a "Don't break it and you can play it" policy.

And monster races usually mean obscenely nerfing yourself, not cheese (besides a few exceptions), due to the overtly high LA/RHD on most of them. And Core races are pretty bad as well; Dwarf and Human vastly outshine the other PHB races. Pathfinder actually did pretty well here IMO, making underused races much better (though unfortunately making Human even better in the process).

So how about broad races, narrow classes?