Issues with Core (3.5)

[The Oakenshield]

I know that the main issue with the entire 3.5 system is that casters, especially at high levels, are far more versatile, adaptable and challenging to play than non-casters.

So I ask you, what are the other glaring issues with Core?
And perhaps with PHII as well, it might be used.

Thanks.

[Greenish]

There aren't enough good feats in core for a straight fighter going to 20. You pick the good ones first, and after that (while everyone else is getting better and better abilities) you're forced to pick poorer and poorer options. Multiclassing will get you past that, though.

For core rogues, there are no ways to SA constructs, undead, elementals, or other critical immune enemies, and no way to sneak past enemies with Scent, Blindsight, Blindsense, Tremorsense and the like. Both hurt the rogue's key abilities.


Yeah, long time since I've played core only, but those come to mind.

[ericgrau]

Most issues appear in theoretical optimization. Often if you don't know them they'll never appear. Or even if you do then the best option is to play nice and don't abuse the system.

OTOH if there's a player who knows the rules well, such as with spells, and a DM that doesn't it can cause some trouble. It may help to brush up on the SRD, particularly the sections on spells (the aforementioned rules-heavy ones), combat, special abilities => invisibility, breaking and entering (e.g., walls). Skill rules often get neglected too, but that doesn't usually cause major problems except for the poor skillmonkeys getting some of their class features shafted. I have cheat sheets in my sig for some of these but I still need to add a section on invisibility, so you might be better off reading up on the SRD instead.

EDIT: There's a lot of power creep related issues being mentioned here too. That's as much of a problem with the later books having more power as the earlier ones having less. Even so, if you avoid the crazier stuff or let everyone get equally crazy stuff it's not that bad.

[Elfin]

PrC choices for meleers are almost nonexistent - there's basically no melee PrC besides the Dwarven Defender, which is decidedly meh.
Oh, and the Duelist, which I don't think even merits mention.
A rather minor issue, perhaps, when compared to the more glaring ones, but it's something which has always irritated me.

[ScionoftheVoid]

There is no way to stop drowning.

Feats are generally not very good (this also hurts Fighters).

There is almost no reason to play a Sorcerer over a Wizard, Wizard qualifies for everything earlier, uses metamagic better, gets free Scribe Scroll so lower spells per day are not a problem at lower levels (note that crafting scrolls costs tiny amounts even at low levels and that spells per day become a non-issue by the time scrolls get to a significant price), uses a better casting stat (which gives more skill points so you can, if you wish, be just as socially able as a Sorc. The magic item slot to boost it is less important than the cloak slot, Cloaks of Resistance are more common than headband-type items unless you inlcude the Hat of Disguise which replicates a spell you can cast with bonus slots from higher Int) and is generally just better. The only important simple weapon is a crossbow anyway, so having only one proficiency isn't balancing.

That's what I've got off the top of my head.

[Greenish]

PrC choices for meleers are almost nonexistent - there's basically no melee PrC besides the Dwarven Defender, which is decidedly meh.
Oh, and the Duelist, which I don't think even merits mention.

Saph made good use of the Horizon Walker in a core only melee build.

But yeah, core PrCs in general aren't anything to write home about.

[Il_Vec]

Compare our 3 Wisdom-based classes: Druid, Cleric and Mook. I mean Monk.

There is some serious issue.

[dsmiles]

But yeah, core PrCs in general aren't anything to write home about.

Write home? Hell, 3.5e core PrCs don't even merit the effort to IM home. They were truly horrible. I like the fluff and theory behind the Archmage, but in practice there were better ways to get most of those abilities (outside of core, of course).

[Zaq]

The majority of the magic items in Core are horrifically poorly priced, almost always in the "way too expensive" direction. They hadn't yet figured out what was really valuable and what was merely interesting, so a lot of the items that you'd want merely for curiosity's sake are way too expensive to actually afford.

[Ozreth]

Is it weird that after 7 years of playing I still couldn't even sit down and talk about issues with the system?

My group and I never notice unbalances, and if we do we usually don't comment or complain. We just play the system as is and always have. We don't really care if other characters shine over another, you picked what you wanted to play, no? Plus its cooperative, so if somebody in your party is destroying everything in their path, it only helps the party, so more power to him/her.

Is there anybody else out there like me?

[Elfin]

Saph made good use of the Horizon Walker in a core only melee build.

Yea, the Horizon Tripper is probably the strongest Core melee build (and probably the most fun to play); however, as you say, Core PrC pickings are just awful.

[JaronK]

The ones I've noticed (and yes, all of these are from real play):

1) The power differences are VERY noticable if people start getting at all creative, but that's mostly the casters leaving everyone else behind.

2) Fighters. They don't have nearly enough feats in core that are worth having. They're not flexible, and they're unable to do anything their fluff says they can do. They only function within their one area (straight standard combat).

3) Rogues. Too many things trump their abilities (blindsight/scent/tremorsense trumps hide, arcane lock trumps open lock while knock beats it, many types trump sneak attack). They end up being unable to be the sneaky assassin thieves they're supposed to be. They're also set up as combat strikers... but their striking is too easy to completely defeat (even if the DM wasn't considering it) and they're extremely fragile (d6 HD, light armor, no significant special defense) for someone that's supposed to flank the enemy.

4) Monks actually aren't a bad class in general, just weak. Compare to Fighters, which are stronger but boring and unable to do their thing. If everything was the same power as a Monk, the Monk would be fine as a class... but if everything were the same power as a Fighter, Fighters would still be boring and unable to do their thing.

In the end, the easiest fix for core is to swap it out for a new set of 11 classes. Warblade, Crusader, Swordsage, Bard, Wildshape Ranger, Factotum, Binder, Warmage, Beguiler, Dread Necromancer, Warlock would be balanced, fun, and able to handle all the same character concepts (though not at the same power levels).

JaronK

[Eldariel]

Write home? Hell, 3.5e core PrCs don't even merit the effort to IM home. They were truly horrible. I like the fluff and theory behind the Archmage, but in practice there were better ways to get most of those abilities (outside of core, of course).

I dunno, I use Archmage rather often. If you are a Master Specialist, it's relatively painless to enter (one feat) and frankly, it gives you a bunch of worthwhile stuff. Best is, of course, Arcane Reach which is basically a +2 Metamagic applied for free on all your spells. And Mastery of Shaping is still one feat you've saved (and you get it earlier through AM to boot), and Spell Power is basically a 30k item for free. Spell-Like = extra 9th level slot or 81k item for free, and Mastery of Counterspelling can be quite useful since casters are by nature the most threatening opponents and getting free- and immediate action counterspells is quite easy; turning targeted Dispels, Orbs of Doom and such back at their caster can be very brutal.

Also, Loremaster is far from terrible; one level dip gets you 4+Int skills in class (inc. UMD), Lore & all sorts of goodies. And a feat. And there are few other somewhat worthwhile abilities in the class. The biggest selling point is UMD in class and good skill points tho, along with the goodies Lore & co. provide you.

They're even both fairly well balanced with regards to entry prerequisites and prerequisites making them take some effort to enter, but quite useful if you do decide to take some levels in one.

Also, one worth mentioning is Thaumaturgist which actually has rather good abilities even though it's rarely used. Notably, it's the perfect finish in many Malconvoker builds and has some cool stuff like Contingent Conjuration (extra Contingencies yay!).


Other than that though, Horizon Walker has decent abilities on levels 6-10 but nothing earthshattering, Shadowdancer is usable as a one-two level dip in some builds, Dragon Disciple is at least better than Core Melee though that's not saying much, Mystic Theurge is quite alright with early entry, Hierophant has some fringe uses (ramping CL after you have 9th level spell & Divine Reach), Arcane Archer's level 2 ability can be made somewhat useful in some builds but otherwise the class has no class features, Eldritch Knight is respectable but bland & Arcane Trickster has some fringe uses (notably as a finish in Unseen Seer-builds maxing out SA) but that's about it. It's funny how the arcane PrCs (and Thaumaturgist) are all somewhat decent (except Arcane Archer) while basically all the martial PrCs are eminently "Meh".

The majority of the magic items in Core are horrifically poorly priced, almost always in the "way too expensive" direction. They hadn't yet figured out what was really valuable and what was merely interesting, so a lot of the items that you'd want merely for curiosity's sake are way too expensive to actually afford.

Then there's lolCandleofInvocation and Dust of Sneezing and Choking and such...

[Akal Saris]

I agree with mostly all that's been said so far. I'll add a few peeves of my own:

1. Save vs. Death whenever you take -50hp in 1 hit. Past 9th level, that rule can come up alarmingly quickly, and it's both illogical and deadly to PCs. PF thankfully removed the rule entirely, like most actual games already did.

2. Very poorly thought out favored class rules. It encourages min/maxing rather than discourages crazy multi-classing. An Elf Sorcerer 3/Paladin 1 would have a multi-class penalty, while a Human Ftr 6/Barbarian 2/Ranger 2/Rogue 2/etc. wouldn't.

3. No swift actions for non-casters. Casters get Quicken Spell, everyone else gets nothing. Glaring hole in the action economy that only becomes more obvious as newer classes like the warblade have built-in swift action mechanics.

[HunterOfJello]

Attack scales to a ridiculous degree while AC is gained slowly or not at all past level 3.

[Krazddndfreek]

Yeah, but that's an issue of 3.5 as a whole, unless you're a caster and you have a crap-ton of buffs. Even then, it would be far more efficient to just use miss chances like say, mirror image.

[Tavar]

I'm not sure just how true that is. Look at ToS, or high-optimization 20th level characters. The AC's are high enough that Full BaB classes can essentially only hit on a 20.

[Eldariel]

I'm not sure just how true that is. Look at ToS, or high-optimization 20th level characters. The AC's are high enough that Full BaB classes can essentially only hit on a 20.

That's mostly due to stupid buff stacks. Which can equally be applied to offense. Point being, your base Armor is Armor+Dex+10 (+Shield)+Misc and the rest is magic items. While your attack is Level+1d20+Misc. I'm sure it's easy to see the issue here; a level 20 Fighter is exactly as good at avoiding hits as a level 1 Fighter in the same armor.

[Kaje]

Aside from massive imbalance issues, my main issue with core is that it's boring as hell.

Seriously, out of the ten classes, only one (sorcerer) interests me at all.

[Zaq]

Aside from massive imbalance issues, my main issue with core is that it's boring as hell.

Seriously, out of the ten classes, only one (sorcerer) interests me at all.

There are eleven core cla . . .

Oh, I see what you did there.

[awa]

the druid always struck me as the biggest problem an unoptimized poorly played wizard can be next to useless but a druid is an incredible power house right out the door. even when the druid is completely unoptimized not even taking natural spell their animal companion is comparable to monk or fighter just by being their.

[Kaje]

So which do you think I was deliberately leaving out; fighter or monk?

Or should I perhaps admit that before I posted I did a quick mental count and somehow missed barbarian?

[VirOath]

the druid always struck me as the biggest problem an unoptimized poorly played wizard can be next to useless but a druid is an incredible power house right out the door. even when the druid is completely unoptimized not even taking natural spell their animal companion is comparable to monk or fighter just by being their.

I'm going to argue this. All things said, a Druid isn't a powerhouse right out of the box. You still have to pick some decent shapes to take, use some commonsense with your spells and not take a retarded animal companion.

I've seen a poorly written up druid before. It was a bit painful really.

Comparing to Warblade, I'm not sure if they can pick bad strikes and stuff. Even if their choices don't synergize well, just by their design they will be good.

[awa]

you almost have to be trying to be weak or giving your self roleplayng limitations to fail as a druid just grab bears and your already at least as good as a fighter

[The Big Dice]

Many of the problems with 3.5 D&D aren't problems with the core rules. They're endemic problems to the game.

It's a class/level based game, so instantly you're wearing handcuffs when it comes to character design. And saying "But you can get to where you want in just ten levels!" isn't an answer that works in the real world.

It's based on linear probability, so you absoutely can't play the odds. There's an equal chance of rolling any number every time you roll the dice. Dice having no memory and all. This means that as a player, you can't rely on the dice in the slightest.

And the flipside of that is, after a certain point, the dice become almost irrelevant due to rapid growth of static bonuses. At least for non casters.

But the biggest problem of all is, the game has been analysed, classified, clarified and generally poked with sticks until it started to cry. People don't talk about "character" they talk about "builds." And that is purely down to the game system.

D&D encourages a certain kind of playstyle. That's not to say that you can only play D&D one way, but a character at any level is nothing more than a series of equations and numbers on a page. Any life comes from the player, rather than the character.

What I mean is, If for some reason, two people were given the same sheet and played through the same scenario with the same GM, there's no cues on the character sheet to encourage them to roleplay. Both would play the personality of the charcter in very different ways.

When you make a character to play some RPGs, you look at the sheet and you see a littler person, ready to take part in some story. But when you look at a D&D character, you see feats, hit points, attack bonus, armour class and maybe spell selection.

And that's not the fault of the people playing the game. It's because of the people who wrote it in the first place.

[awa]

now that is not necessarily true at all my current character (warlock/rouge) has ranks in craft hat and some other useless skills. a white wolf character can be just as much a collection of stats as any dnd character as can a mutants and mastermind character(those are the main games ive played). just because forums tend to emphasis builds does not mean that that is how people play (now some do and that's their choice and it is not a wrong choice)

[The Big Dice]

now that is not necessarily true at all my current character (warlock/rouge) has ranks in craft hat and some other useless skills. a white wolf character can be just as much a collection of stats as any dnd character as can a mutants and mastermind character(those are the main games ive played). just because forums tend to emphasis builds does not mean that that is how people play (now some do and that's their choice and it is not a wrong choice)

To be honest, it's not something that's unique to D&D. You'd be surprised how many times you hear characters described as a What rather than a Who. It's just a bit more blatant in D20 based games, as personality and character traits aren't really quantified in the same way as they are in a lot of more modern games.

Don't forget, D&D and the entire D20 product catalog by extension, are all legacy games that are basically carrying the baggage of concepts that most of the game designing world abandoned in the 80s.

[TheThan]

Oh boy where to start.

DnD 3.x is a class and level based system.

Levels
Levels are designed to tell the Dm how powerful the characters are in relation to the monsters presented in the rules. It provides an easy curve to follow for the dm to determine what sorts of encounters are appropriate at any given time. Simply put the higher level you are, the more powerful you are.

As you might expect, each character is supposed to grow in power as he levels, gaining new and more powerful abilities as he attains each new level. The problem lies in the fact about half of the core classes do not actually increase in power as they gain levels. The five spell casters (bard, cleric, druid, sorcerer and wizard), gain more abilities and more powerful ones each and every level. I’m referring to spells. At each level any spell caster gains access to more spells (or can replace existing ones), or new higher level (and usually more powerful) spells. Also the DC on their spell increase and become harder to resist. This is the primary reason why most of those classes are considered “top tier”. Rogues are the only other class that gets any decent amount of power through leveling up with their sneak attack. Barbarians get 6 lousy instances of rage (by 20th level even) and paladins get 5 instances of smite evil. Not to mention the paladin’s Smite Evil doesn’t improve at all; at least the barbarian’s rage gets improvements.


Classes
Class systems are designed to give the player a solid framework to build a character upon; for instance you want to cast spells, you play a wizard or sorcerer. That’s fine, but the problem is that many of the classes are too focused (rangers and monks for instance), while other classes are too generic (fighters, wizards). So for the first choice, you have no options to take your character they’re too focused on doing on thing that if you want to do something else for your character (ranger with a great axe for instance) you’re not getting to actually use your class features. The problem with the classes that are too generic, is that there are not enough options for them. Sure that fighter could be a man at arms or a knight, but there are little in the way of rules that reflect those two character concepts, and a lot of people like and want their character sheets to reflect their characters.

So what you end up with is a game system that is saturated with classes, many of which are slight variations of the same theme (ranger/scout, paladin/favored soul, knight/fighter are a few examples). Do we really need those extra classes? Sure they’re nice to have, but are ultimately not necessary if those core classes had options to make them into those sorts of characters.

Man I could go on, but I’m getting long winded.

[Pyre_Born]

Is it weird that after 7 years of playing I still couldn't even sit down and talk about issues with the system?

My group and I never notice unbalances, and if we do we usually don't comment or complain. We just play the system as is and always have. We don't really care if other characters shine over another, you picked what you wanted to play, no? Plus its cooperative, so if somebody in your party is destroying everything in their path, it only helps the party, so more power to him/her.

Is there anybody else out there like me?

I'm with you here, while I do think Fighter and Sorc for example need help, my groups never have an issue with balance.

In my opinion it all comes down to whether the group views it as a war game or a ROLEplaying game. My group consists of ROLE players, the wizard never outshines the monk or rogue (or at least not often) because we know it's about working as the team and not who can make the biggest boom. Spells go towards crippling and assisting, and sometimes damaging.

[DeltaEmil]

Spells go towards crippling and assisting

That's what the god wizard (which can also entail cleric, druid and whatever other fullcaster there is) does. He makes the other player characters think that they do matter.