Fundamental flaws of the 3e system?

[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/showsing...12&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/showsing...12&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

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
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

OP says, "Pathfinder is fair game too."

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."


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

It would have been so much better if the core classes included a muggle class who hates Christmas

They're called druids

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.