Why doesn't 3.5 make SENSE?

[Silvercat Moonpaw]

But Wizards and magic users of all kinds have the ability to turn into dragons in books and movies. They should have it in D&D. And turning into a DRAGON should pretty much be an immediate win.

And it may be possible now in the argument to see why some people may not like this idea so much: Sure, they may be concerned purely with balance, but they may also be hitting a different version of "this does not fulfill my expectations of fantasy". If their version of fantasy says that magic users can't turn into dragons and/or it's not an immediate win the fact that those things are true in D&D throws them off. Same with the issue of fighters being able to compete with magic users. They cry foul and demand a change to fulfill their desires as they have been taught by other people doing the same.

What's really the problem is that they are looking at D&D as if it's supposed to do all different kinds of fantasy. Which it's not, not at default (I'm acknowledging it can be tweaked). D&D does (as far as I can tell) high-hero, magic owns, abstract combat, and a blend of cinematic and realistic simulation rules. Expect one of those aspects to be different and you may end up assuming the game hasn't been done right. D&D is only at fault in this for not being clearer up front what kind of fantasy it is, it's not at fault for not fulfilling a kind of fantasy image for which it has not be designed.

 

[ST]

3.0 and 3.5 was the start of a shift in philosophy. It said "Why do you HAVE to suck it up? Couldn't the rules just be balanced so that no matter what option you chose you were just as good as everyone else?" Only the problem was, they didn't want to change the game TOO much. So, they kept a bunch of rules the same as they were in previous editions because someone on the design team would say "But Shapechange was one of my favorite spells, it's classic D&D to become a dragon and kill all the enemies".

In fact, most of the real balance issues in 3.5e came from "open ended" rules. Any time a spell said "pick any monster" or "choose a bonus" or "immunity" or things like "escapes from all methods of restraint" or "opens all locks" it generally became imbalanced.

I think you nailed it. They started trying to balance the game (likely starting with the specific spells and abilities that they got the most Customer Service questions about, I guess?) but the system allows for so many synergies that they sort of just plugged some of the most obvious holes and called it a day. Pathfinder followed much the same line and got the same criticism about it, because any system as complex as those are is virtually impossible to debug fully.

 

[Celtavian]

Just hope Pathfinder fixed the awful 3.5e spot rules which meant that a normal human couldn't spot a damn mountain off in the distance...

They use Perception now. Is this some kind of literal interpretation of the rules? I would never have my players fail to see a mountain. Who would do that as a DM?

My main gripe with casters being overpowered in general is that it is not fun for a decent amount of players when they realize that their level 12 monk is overshadowed by the party's Druid, Wizard, and Cleric, and the complaint I have against caster power in Pathfinder is that they said they were going to fix it.

I care more about the classes fitting and being effective morso than one class being overpowered.

In Pathfinder every class (save for the rogue in my opinion) fits and is very effective. They all get cool abilities all the way to 20. And they can all do some "Wow, that is really cool" stuff. The monk is pretty darn fun to play now. You feel much more like a martial artist than in previous editions.

 

[Celtavian]

That's not really high level as much as it is "level 20"

You're effectively upset that level 20 characters are very powerful, which strikes me as being somewhat odd, to say the least.

No. The Paladin is already very hard to hurt. He gets good Fort and Will saves now. He gets his standard immunity to fear at lvl 3 or 4 and is completely immune to compulsion and charm spells by lvl 17 I believe. This is on top of receiving a saving throw bonus for Charisma. The Paladin is very, very powerful now, much moreso than 3.5. So is the fighter. The barbarian even. Just about every class received a substantial power up. And the melees do the most damage by far unless it is AoE damage, especially the fighter.

I don't see why you find this odd when it's all laid out right in the book. Almost every class received a substantial power up. Even the monk is extremely dangerous and you can build a grappler no one is going to escape from easily. And once you pin a creature, it's game over. I pinned a flesh golem at level 8. My CMD was so high he couldn't escape easily at all. It made him very easy to kill.

 

[Dandu]

They use Perception now. Is this some kind of literal interpretation of the rules? I would never have my players fail to see a mountain. Who would do that as a DM?

It's an exaggeration of how the spot rules fail to work.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

No. The Paladin is already very hard to hurt. He gets good Fort and Will saves now. He gets his standard immunity to fear at lvl 3 or 4 and is completely immune to compulsion and charm spells by lvl 17 I believe. This is on top of receiving a saving throw bonus for Charisma. The Paladin is very, very powerful now, much moreso than 3.5. So is the fighter. The barbarian even. Just about every class received a substantial power up. And the melees do the most damage by far unless it is AoE damage, especially the fighter.

I don't see why you find this odd when it's all laid out right in the book. Almost every class received a substantial power up. Even the monk is extremely dangerous and you can build a grappler no one is going to escape from easily. And once you pin a creature, it's game over. I pinned a flesh golem at level 8. My CMD was so high he couldn't escape easily at all. It made him very easy to kill.

Let me rephrase it - I find it odd that you seem so confused, irritated, or boggled that higher level creatures are more powerful.

Also I have no clue how you did that with your monk. A monk is no better at grappling or bull rushing or any combat maneuvers then any high BAB class would be. Potentially worse since he's so MAD.

 

[BryonD]

It's an exaggeration of how the spot rules fail to work.

Giant In the Playground Games

It is pretty simple.
Use the rules, don't let the rules use you.

 

[catsclaw227]

Also I have no clue how you did that with your monk. A monk is no better at grappling or bull rushing or any combat maneuvers then any high BAB class would be. Potentially worse since he's so MAD.

I know that when I'm MAD, I seem to have more strength to grapple and bull rush.

 

[Noumenon]

you can build a grappler no one is going to escape from easily. And once you pin a creature, it's game over. I pinned a flesh golem at level 8. My CMD was so high he couldn't escape easily at all.

That's because the CMB rules essentially let you "take 15" on your grapple check, so if you can get one started you have a big advantage. It's the opposite of what I would have done, since I thought the problem with grappling was PCs could never get out of one.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

I think you nailed it. They started trying to balance the game (likely starting with the specific spells and abilities that they got the most Customer Service questions about, I guess?) but the system allows for so many synergies that they sort of just plugged some of the most obvious holes and called it a day. Pathfinder followed much the same line and got the same criticism about it, because any system as complex as those are is virtually impossible to debug fully.

Yeah. 3e kind of suffers from being a halfway point between 2e and 4e. In 2e, no one much cared about balance. Balance was what happened when you died by walking down a corridor and had to roll up a new character.

3e(and later 3.5e and even Pathfinder) followed a policy of just taking the system created by 2e and attempting to plug the hundreds of rules holes that people had been complaining about for years. They succeeded in plugging the most common holes but managed to both create new ones and shift the focus of players to the other holes that no one used before because there were better holes.

Unfortunately, it's like putting your finger in a dam. You plug a hole only to have another hole appear. Sooner or later you run out of digits to shove into holes.

Which is why you might get confused over the logic involved with 3.5e, because often you'll see one spell that was changed because people complained at how powerful it was side by side with a spell that keeps the same text it had in 2e because no one noticed how powerful it was(either because it was overshadowed by the other spell or because people just overlooked it).