D&D General D&D 3.5 - splatbook power creep or no?

[Kurotowa]

3.5 had the power level of its options all oevr the place and never options were in average not more powerfull than PHB material.

So it was not (unnatural) powercreep, but power does increase (naturally) with more total options.

My memory of 3.5e is that the quality control was pretty uneven. Each new supplement was packed full of player options. Of those, some would be alright, a lot would be garbage, and two or three per book would be overpowered.

This meant things were fairly balanced with a limited list of allowed books. But in a campaign with unlimited book access, you could cherry pick only the best options from every book and build a character entirely out of the overpowered ones. That was how you made a PC that completely broke the power curve.

So no, it wasn't that the average option in a later book was stronger in itself. The power creep came from being allowed to assemble only the strongest options from all of them at once in a busted combination.

 

[Voadam]

In general in late 3.5 going for strong character efficiency after a couple of levels it is hard to beat a straight PHB druid, wizard, or cleric. Multiclassing and prestige classes almost always mean giving up at least one caster level, which as an opportunity cost knocks out top level spells, one of the biggest sources of character power. Top spells and number of top spells are big considerations. Beguilers are super cool and I had a lot of fun playing one, but a straight enchanter wizard I would say can do both super powerful focused charms and have normal wizard stuff to handle the undead and constructs and vermin and oozes and such who are immune to the beguiler's mind affecting spells. The fact that clerics and druids got daily full access to ever expanding spell lists and wizards got two new spells of their choice a level and could learn unlimited knew ones meant they had better options than a lot of new classes with limited spell lists.

Tome of Blades provided strong warrior classes. Scout was probably stronger than PH rogue, but it is really hard to beat a PH full caster once they get going. It was possible to do so, but it was not easy and required a lot of specific building for prerequisites so it did not leave a lot of room for doing your own thing with feats and skills and stats. A straight MAD wizard or a high wisdom druid who relies on casting and wildshaping leaves a lot of room to do your own thing while still being a strong tier one class build.

 

[Kurotowa]

In general in late 3.5 going for strong character efficiency after a couple of levels it is hard to beat a straight PHB druid, wizard, or cleric.

True, but half the reason for that is that the PHB full casters got stealth buffed with every book because they kept adding new spells. New spells are a great page filler player option. And again, most of them were garbage, but a few of them were overpowered, and the overpowered ones built up over time.

Heck, they haven't escaped that problem in 5e. Silvery Barbs, anyone?

 

[DeadlyUematsu]

The splatbooks definitely had power creep. Core was already unbalanced and while there was material to help patch CORE issues, it also tacked on spells, items, and prestige classes that were unhelpful.

 

[VHawkwinter]

My memories of 3.5 was that the player-facing options in the splatbooks really added power when someone was trying to optimize. Especially some prestige classes. This isn't saying all the material was more powerful, but some of it definitely could be either used or cherry-picked.

I voted no. In hindsight, some of the more exploity cleric stuff was in splats (like nightsticks) so I should have voted yes.

That said, I was still trying to vote in generalities rather than say "there's no busted content you should ban." Ban Sarrukh, and don't let people become punpun through polymorph, for instance.

Someone else mentioned that all the most powerful options were in the core books (so that includes the Mystic Theurge and other DMG content, not just the PHB).

This was why I voted no as a generality. The overwhelming majority of the post core books are weaker than Sorcerer and Wizard, nevermind Cleric and Druid.

I really remember the splatbooks adding to power creep, and that someone intentionally optimizing a character with full access to the splatbooks would be able to create someone significantly more powerful than if limited to just the core books.

You could certainly do much better than a fighter or rogue or monk. But they were the worst of the PHB by far.

Infinite PrC stacking could get pretty cheesy, but if you're following the DMG, PrC access will be campaign limited and not freely available, so you probably don't let them take 5 PrCs.

What are your thoughts?

I think 3.5 had a problem of steadily declining quality control as the books came out faster and faster and they used more and more freelancers; and I certainly wouldn't include everything 3.5. Frankly I wouldn't include most 3.5 content, and would default to 3.0/3.5 FR books (removing problem options) + core + select UA options + psionics + manual of the planes + Arms & Equipment + maybe the 3.0 Class Books like Song & Silence or Tome & Blood. If I were running Dragonlance or Ravenloft or Eberron, the FR books get swapped for their campaign books instead.

There are some other things I would bolt onto that, or swap out, but they're not content published by Wizards of the Coast.

Addendum:
I'm not saying there aren't things I would change. There are many. I am building my own modernised 3.x-Based RPG; and it is substantially less compatible with 3.0 or 3.5 characters than PF1 was. Some targetted spell changes, a few core mechanic changes including making spell prep take 10 minutes per apell level like AD&D, and there being no 'knows whole list' casting (clerics and druids would have divine spellbooks) (if I run 3e again these spellcasting nerfs will be in, and I would nerf wands), different skill list, overhauled magic items and wbl, it's classless and kind-of levelless... But it's fully compatible for me to grab and use 3.x monsters, and other parts could be imported individually with some effort.

But I wouldn't get too bent out of shape over the /power/ of characters who have access to more than the core books, just selectively remove some problem options, and generally avoid the 3.5 era 'generic' book line, and you're good.

 

[DeadlyUematsu]

I think 3.5 had a problem of steadily declining quality control as the books came out faster and faster and they used more and more freelancers

Pretty much my understanding. If you internalize that context, you can run 3.5e without issue because you know that whatever is in the books is very much subject to ordinary judgment.

 

[VHawkwinter]

Pretty much my understanding. If you internalize that context, you can run 3.5e without issue because you know that whatever is in the books is very much subject to common sense.

You could, but I found most of the "Complete" line and what not to be mostly full of worse reprints of 3.0 FR content and bad new additions. XPH is okay, but otherwise I would mostly skip the rest and add the 3.0 books and/or FR books instead, rather than try to cherrypick the good stuff from the 3.5 splats.

That is of course, my personal opinion on where "the good stuff" from Wizards is. But the GM shouldn't try to or feel obligated to include everything. Curate a list of what you consider to be "the good stuff" and just run with that.

I'm more likely (I've done it) to let a player start as a vampire (with a template class) or a lowish CR fiend or celestial, or an awakened animal or magical beast, and adjust their LA to be more generous, than I am to go for any class with Encounter Powers.

 

[DeadlyUematsu]

You could, but I found most of the "Complete" line and what not to be mostly full of worse reprints of 3.0 FR content and bad new additions. XPH is okay, but otherwise I would mostly skip the rest and add the 3.0 books and/or FR books instead, rather than try to cherrypick the good stuff from the 3.5 splats.

That is of course, my personal opinion on where "the good stuff" from Wizards is. But the GM shouldn't try to or feel obligated to include everything. Curate a list of what you consider to be "the good stuff" and just run with that.

Agreed. When I wrote a ban list for 3.0e, it was considerably smaller than my ban list for 3.5e.

 

[VHawkwinter]

Agreed. When I wrote a ban list for 3.0e, it was considerably smaller than my ban list for 3.5e.

I'm significantly more inclined to selectively import stuff from PF1 and Mongoose/FFG/AEG/Atlas Penumbra than I am to grab from 3.5 outside of the 3.5 Forgotten Realms books, and even then, my inclusions from those taper off after ~2005ish.

 

[Minigiant]

3e was designed around system master.

In every book there was

1. S tier stuff
2. A tier stuff
3. B tier stuff
4. C tier stuff
5. D tier stuff
6. F tier stuff

As time went on, an optimizer player could swap out their Bs and Cs out their potential options with Ss and As.