D&D 3E/3.5 The problems with 3.5?

[Darklone]

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).

Seconded. Being a specialist will get you killed in my campaigns. And yes, the players know that.

 

[Greg K]

1. Too many absolutes.
a. Automatic immunities by race, class, or hit die/level limit challenges.
b. spells that make certain skills unneccessary thereby cutting into other classes schticks.

2. Full spellcasters dominate at higher levels

3. Too few skill points for several classes (Note: I don't think class skills need combining or non-class skills should be removed).

4. Stacking of good save bonuses from multiclassing

5. Diplomacy. Not the existance of the skill, but the mechanics.

6. Attack bonuses outpacing AC.

7. DM prep time at higher levels if building NPCs by the book.

 

[Nail]

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

All true.

What really gets me is how little of the "prep" matters. That is, the BBEG may have 124 different things he can do - and all of it should be stated out - but the BBEG is likely to do only 3 - 5 rounds worth of stuff before escape/death/defeat.

IOW, more than half the stats written down won't get used. It's wasted effort.

...so to be a good DM in 3.xe, you need to either:

• Spend lots of prep time,
• Use published modules, but still spend significant prep time to correct their stat blocks, and/or
• Judiciously neglect large tracts of the stat blocks.

 

[Wolfwood2]

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).

At low levels that works. At higher levels, the gap between a dedicated specialist and a generalist becomes so wide that anything even moderately challenging for the specialist just isn't possible for the generalist. At that point, the difference between the generalist and somebody who didn't invest in the skill at all is negligible. When you're 13th level and the dedicated Stealth specialist has +30 to Hide checks, then the guy who has +7 to Hide and the guy who only has +1 to Hide from his dexterity don't look all that different.

On the other side, D&D is a team game. Discouraging specialization isn't necessarily a good thing either. It's good to have niches.

The idea with 4E is to maintain that feel you get at 2nd level, when the specialist may have +8 to Balance checks, but the guy with +3 from his dexterity can at least try to keep up.

 

[moritheil]

I don't actually see that much wrong with 3.5, aside from the possibilities of infinite loops, the poor editing, and the abysmally bad tactical suggestions given to DMs and players alike.

Poor editing came into play with feats like Greenbound Summoning, which the author posted was supposed to adjust spell level by +2 but did not (oops?)

Infinite loops gave us Pun Pun, the Cancer Mage, and other such legends of twinkery.

Bad tactical suggestions left us with the requirement that DMs be tactically savvy and have character building abilities on par with (or comparable to) those of their players.

Essentially the problem Nail talks about above with higher level play is the fact that most of the gaming is done before the actual gaming (so to speak):

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?".)

It's not just battles; it's the planning out of feat trees, the pre-fight buffs, the conjurations that take place the previous day before an adventure, and all the other things. It's the optimization that takes place when building the character (sometimes fun, sometimes a chore.) You need to go into a high-level encounter with an edge, or you are usually going to die (assuming equally tactically competent opponents.)

 

[Torx]

It's not just battles; it's the planning out of feat trees, the pre-fight buffs, the conjurations that take place the previous day before an adventure, and all the other things. It's the optimization that takes place when building the character (sometimes fun, sometimes a chore.) You need to go into a high-level encounter with an edge, or you are usually going to die (assuming equally tactically competent opponents.)

I'd like to tweak this a bit. It's not so much that you need an edge or die at higher levels. That's a matter of game style. The issue in my experience is more that when some players do have that edge, and other - more casual - players don't, it eventually leads to imbalanced gaming.

I have two players that over the years have become very adept at maximizing their character options. They generally have at least a good idea of their progression from levels 1-20. Then I have several others who don't necessarily excel at that (and not that they should). But with 3.5, those players who by level 10 or so dominate play because of their optimized characters leave some of the other players feeling left out. This places a burden on me, the DM, to go out of my way to include these other players, where a more balanced game would not.

I'm not talking player personalities getting in the way here. I have a fairly balanced group of personalities. It's rule acumen and character optimization that lead to these discrepancies.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

The prep time for baddies seems to be a common complaint. It is a solvable problem, but it is very far from solved for you out-of-the-box.

The 15 minute a day problem: There are a number of variations on this theme. The part I do not like is that a party that is methodical at stacking up buffs can boost their effectiveness 50%-100%. That creates a burden on the DM. Is this encounter going to be a boring cakewalk, a fun fight, or is 1 PC going to die before they even roll initiative? Impossible to say, without making assumptions about what buffs the PCs are packing.

A common variant of the 15 minute a day problem is that the buffs encourage the spellcasters to burn through most of their spell slots in just 1-2 encounters. Then they go home and rest. "9:15 am. It's Miller time!"

In theory this could (and sometimes did) happen in previous editions.

A 3e DM struggling with hyperbuffed PCs waltzing through encounters without breaking a sweat (my complaint) may inadvertently encourage the game to fall into the 9:15 rut -- the players (correctly or incorrectly) gauge that the opposition is so powerful that fighting at all while not buffed to the gills is suicidal.

 

[MithrasRahl]

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.)

I'm sorry, but did he follow the proper EXP penalties for this? If he didn't, no wonder, I can also make a broken character like that too.

 

[Darklone]

I'm sorry, but did he follow the proper EXP penalties for this? If he didn't, no wonder, I can also make a broken character like that too.

No XP penalties if he's human or half-elf since duelist is a prestige class and fighter as his highest class does not count.

 

[irdeggman]

Magic system

The fact that a wizard ends up relying on a crossbow once his daily spells are used (to frequent an occurence at low levels specifically)

I have nothing wrong with encouraging specialization (to a point) at all. IMO it leads to a much better party mesh - with every PC taking up a specific role instead of everyone being just as good at everything as everyone else.