D&D 3E/3.5 The problems with 3.5?

Deimodius

First Post
I've been playing 3.5 for quite some time now, and I doubt I'll be switching to 4th, but after seeing the new offerings from Paizo and Monte, and with all the 3.5 "problems" I see people complain about, I am wondering if there is a thread, or blog, or article some where that has a definitive list of the "problems with 3.5"?

And I'm not necessarily talking about things that are a matter of opinion (like "Save or Die") but rather what are all the inherent problems with the system? People talk about the flawed math of 3.5, the "sweet spot", and the 15 minute day. What are these things? What's wrong with them? What are all/any of the other "problems"? What was so broken they needed a new edition?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Nail

First Post
Deimodius said:
And I'm not necessarily talking about things that are a matter of opinion (like "Save or Die") but rather what are all the inherent problems with the system? People talk about the flawed math of 3.5, the "sweet spot", and the 15 minute day. What are these things? What's wrong with them? What are all/any of the other "problems"? What was so broken they needed a new edition?
Your first question ("inherent problems") is quantitative. Your last question ("so broken") is qualitative. ....and the answers to these 2 questions are unrelated. :D Which should we answer first?
 

Nail

First Post
Deimodius said:
And I'm not necessarily talking about things that are a matter of opinion (like "Save or Die") but rather what are all the inherent problems with the system?
The inherent problems I see stem from how many things begin to "add up" above 8th level or so. Attack bonuses scale poorly with AC bonuses, Saves scale poorly with Save DCs, Damage scales poorly with hps, etc.

For example, at about 6th level, the party's main front-line warrior is likely to hit the Bad Guys ~80% of the time, and that hit is likely to moderately damage the Bad Guy.

By 12th level, the party's main front-line warrior is likely to hit the Bad Guys 99% of the time, and that hit may very well drop said Bad Guy.

And by 20th level? If the player knows what he's doing, 300 hp of damage per round is easily within reach. Put that together with the rest of the party, and a 800 hp dragon is dead in round one....before it acts.

(...and of course a "good DM" can handle it. I do so all the time. That's not the issue; the issue is "should the DM have to?".)
 

Nail

First Post
Deimodius said:
What was so broken they needed a new edition?
Profit earning potential.

That's what was broken that needed fixing. And I don't blame them: they are a "for-profit" company, after all. (Duh.) I want them to stick around and promote D&D...even if they promote a version that I don't use.
 

CCH_LLC

First Post
This is something I have noticed with the D20 system in general, but I think it applies to 3.5 as well. In order to be most effective a character needs to be a specialist. If you want to be a good fighter, you need to decide at level 1 what kind of weapon and armor you are going to use and how you want to use them and stick with that, you cant switch from longsword to axe at 8th level and still be as effective. The same thing is true for magic, and even skill based classes. There is no real versatility for PC's.
 

Torx

First Post
CCH_LLC said:
This is something I have noticed with the D20 system in general, but I think it applies to 3.5 as well. In order to be most effective a character needs to be a specialist. If you want to be a good fighter, you need to decide at level 1 what kind of weapon and armor you are going to use and how you want to use them and stick with that, you cant switch from longsword to axe at 8th level and still be as effective. The same thing is true for magic, and even skill based classes. There is no real versatility for PC's.

This is so true. My group recently started the first AP, and I was reduced to telling one of my players that playing a rogue, then multiclassing to specialist wizard (necromancy) at 2nd level, that his class selection was a "suboptimal" choice. What I really meant was: as the party's only arcane caster (@ 2nd level), he needed to be "better." A multiclassed wizard in a deadly campaign is a detriment to the entire party. Not to mention that being a necromancer weakens the role even further.

A few weeks after that discussion, I've come to realize that I shouldn't have had to tell him that. He should be able to play his character concept without me or any of the other players telling him he can't since it's a weak character because of the rules.

The same thing can be said for single-class (core) bards, or rangers (fighters are better at both TWF and archery), or paladins, or monks, or other multiclass casters, etc, etc, etc. Now this brings in a whole bag of balance arguments where people may disagree with this assertion. Be that as it may, the arguments are there, and I don't know that a game can stand indefinitely if players can make significantly stronger characters than other players when they play the same classes over and over.

DISCLAIMER: I don't have any problem with my players playing weak characters, but the other players at my table do. This guy is also returning from an extended hiatus from gaming and I'm kind of leading him by the hand.
 

eamon

Explorer
3.5 is very slow on-table, and it's hellish on the DM if you wish to prep accurately.

The DM's problem: Making a valid NPC is a lot of work - too much work, and similarly, monster abilities are all spelled out to a degree that makes subtle interactions likely and complex. The core premise of 3.5 is that a monster can only do what its statblock says, so the statblock includes rules for out-of-encounter abilities. That means that advancing monsters is very hard, but simultaneously, it's common for players to know all the monster abilities (since it's been around for quite a while, and since they need to for things like wild-shape). On the one hand we have a lot of player knowledge including out-of-encounter planning which can make this less fantastic, and on the other hand, we have a system that makes it hard for the DM to deviate from this. I spend multiples of the playing time prepping, and that's OK since it's sorta fun, but it would be more rewarding if I could achieve more in that time.

The on-table problem: the "simulation" of the in-game world becomes more and more complex as levels rise. Players gain more and more actions per round, and each action becomes more and more complex in and of itself. A first level character doesn't really have a full-attack action, since he can probably attack only once. A 20th level character can have many many attacks, a swift action, a number of free actions, and will likely have a bunch of "toggles" such as Dodge, Aura's, etc etc etc. All this means that the time it takes to play out one round becomes immense. Almost all combats in D&D are decided in less than 30 seconds (5 rounds), but they take a huge amount of time to play out. That incidentally also skews perceptions, since it means you focus lots of attention on combat, since that what you're likely to spend the majority of your time on, even if you enjoy role-playing, simply because it's so slow.

There are many factors which make combat slow down to a screeching halt. The increasing number of attacks is one. The increasing number of actions is another (immediate actions and delays/ready actions compound this issue). Even simple things like magic missile slow down if you down: everyone has one d4 die, but not necessarily 5. If you're adding 15d6 for a flame-strike at 15th level, that'll take longer than adding 5d6 for a fireball at 5th. Metamagic empower, which is generally more cost-effective, just makes things worse. Then you're got difficult abilities like grapple. There's the complex wildshape. Even in the new version, it's at least complicated since there's just so much to choose from and stat changes trickle down to so many different things.

There's more, but the above are easily fixable.
 
Last edited:

Nail

First Post
A player of mine just made a Fighter 4, Duelist 3, Monk 2, Swordsage 2, Wizard 1. His AC was 8 higher than any other party member (6 players), his hp were nearly as good as the party's tank, his saves were all +20 or better, and his damage potential was high. His versatility was quite good too; he wasn't a one-trick pony.

...and none of that is a problem.....if everyone in the party is like that. (They're not.)
 

Drowbane

First Post
Imo...

Right off the top of my head...

Random character creation & leveling: While I don't mind rolling for stats... it is abit of an out-dated practice compared to "modern RPGs". Point buy for stats and a set # of HP per die (often Max or Half, just for simplicity).

Feats: Not enough per character. Too damn many options. Several examples of imbalance.

Skill points: Not enough points per class (both of my groups toss each class +2 per lvl... so that fighters get 4 + Int, etc).

Class Skills: silly and outdated. Smacks of 2e's proficiencies. I run it so that anybody can take whatever skill they want. And why the hell not? Rogues still rule in the traps-area and wizards still tend to be the biggest 'know it alls".

Skills, part III: Oh, and I combine skills down into groups. Example: Acrobatics (tumble & balance) and Athletics (jump, climb & swim)...

edit: and of course... Power creep / borken suppliments. Arcane Thesis (PHB II) & Shivering Touch (Frostburn), to name two examples.
 
Last edited:

Greg K

Legend
CCH_LLC said:
This is something I have noticed with the D20 system in general, but I think it applies to 3.5 as well. In order to be most effective a character needs to be a specialist. If you want to be a good fighter, you need to decide at level 1 what kind of weapon and armor you are going to use and how you want to use them and stick with that, you cant switch from longsword to axe at 8th level and still be as effective. The same thing is true for magic, and even skill based classes. There is no real versatility for PC's.

Well, in my opinion, you are discussing a playstyle issue. Most effective does not mean most interesting and specialiizing is only most effective if the GM doesn't throw in challenges that demonstrate where lack of versatility is a weaknesss. If a GM wants PC versatility, they need inform players that being a specialist in a few skills (while ignoring others) or in another narrow niche is not always a good idea and, occassionally, put them in situations in which having other skills or abilities is beneficial or necessary (temporary failures/setbacks are not always a bad thing).
 

Remove ads

Top