A lot of the people who call 3.5 broken site examples of exploits like Pun-Pun and Iron Heart Surge that rely on very specific interpretations of ambiguities in the rules. I agree that these ambiguities should not be there in the first place, and that the system as a whole is weaker for having those ambiguities, but seriously, what kind of shit DM would let this sort of abuse fly at their table? What kind of shit DM would let you bring Pun-Pun into any sort of serious campaign?
For reference, the Pun-Pun build assumes that the Manipulate Form ability allows him to raise his familiar's stat to a level equal to his modified stat, after buffs are applied, rather than only to his base stat. 3.5 has lots of problems, but Pun-Pun isn't one of them.
This... and the people who HAVE "played" don't understand the point of Roleplaying, or that the rules are just a suggestion and any GM worth anything will put a stop to blatant exploits.
>what kind of shit DM would let this sort of abuse fly at their table?
A really shit DM, but pretty much everyone I know who has gone on about how you can make ridiculously broken shit with very odd interpretations of rules are also the sort of people who believe the role of the DM is to keep track of monster stats and that's about it.
From memory it also assumes that PAZUZU will grant a wish for some level 1 kobold. Instead of just going "No, fuck you, I'm Pazuzu" and killing you before going on a murderous rampage.
being able to abuse the rules and make clearly illegal combos doesn't make 3.5 broken, Ivory Tower game design, obscene amounts of simulationist rules yet lack or realism, and overall unfocused rules make the game broken
>don't understand the point of Roleplaying
Shit rules in a simulationist game can seriously hamper roleplaying by making things not work as they should. Two 3.5 examples right off of the top of my head? Professional soldiers and mercenaries with zero skills whatsoever thanks to the Fighter class being a piece of shit out of combat and human thieves and assassins being unable to slit an unaware target's throat in darkness unless they have darkvision from a magic item because hey, guess what? Sneak Attack doesn't work against targets with concealment and darkness provides concealment.
>or that the rules are just a suggestion
In that case, they're a set of bad suggestions that will hamper DMs who follow them without already knowing the system like the back of their hand. Fuck you, they're still terrible.
>any GM worth anything will put a stop to blatant exploits.
You're assuming the DM sees eye to eye with you on what is and isn't an exploit. TO isn't even relevant to a table, but things like Druids are, and it's very easy for a DM to see a Druid going balls to the wall while the Fighter gets to jerk off as okay because 'it's in the rules'.
Fuck you, stop apologizing for poorly written rules.
The thing about Iron Heart Surge is that the rule is so ambiguously written that it can be argued to work on any effect that affects you, because that's literally all the rules say. That and the fact that it doesn't just remove the condition from you, but removes it entirely, so if you and a bunch of other people get cursed IHS will not only remove the curse from you but cure everybody else affected by it.
Ironically one of the things it doesn't work on is the kinds of things I feel it was intended for, like being stunned or affected by a mind-affecting spell, as those would prevent you from taking the action to use it.
This is really all I need to post when it comes to explaining why 3.PF is stupid.
>if you want a game to have good rules you do not understand roleplaying
This is just a pathetic argument. You should not be okay with a poorly constructed game just because its an RPG.
Of course any sane DM wouldn't let Pun-Pun fly. But that doesn't make 3.5/3.X any less of a shitty games.
Bad class-balance which shatters mid-game even without exploits.
Magic item economy was ridiculous. WPL too.
Awful bonus-stacking rules.
Simulationist rules, assassins in darkness cannot slit throat unless they have darkvision, as mentioned above.
Feats, while neat idea coming from 2e, essentially became chains and taxes ( especially true in PF ). And there were huge power-gaps between some - like Toughness or Natural Spell.
But none of that matters because you can literally just break it by accident just playing as a caster. You will just be better after a time playing in a logical manner not even min-maxing.
I know this. I have seen this. I have done this.
M8 3.5 is still broken. That doesn't mean it isn't fun, and that doesn't mean it isn't the best edition of D&D (because it is).
The contentless crap that is 5e is just pathetic, everyone was a caster in 4e, and AD&D is just a mess of retarded-ass rules that don't interrelate. Just like 3.5, but without the content.
OP play what you want to play. I still play 3.PF and so do loads of others. But /tg/ has a hate boner for them because are all redditards who have gotten on the rules-light bandwagon. Sure it's not the best designed game. But it's a hell of a lot more fun than most of the other tripe out there (such as Dungeon World, Burning Wheel, and Savage Worlds, which are all crappier systems).
Not 100% related to OPs point, but still relevant.
Protip: every edition was as content less as 5e is now at the same point in its life. It's only been out officially for a couple months. Let's not forget that d&d is pretty much the only rpg where people seem to expect that much content beyond the base rulebooks. Games like shadowrun and exalted have some splatbooks, but they trust the GM to be capable of putting together an adventure by themselves without relying on published adventure paths and modules and whatnot.
Game has good rules that do good for the context of the game. Its well defined and a great time for the people involved who actually enjoy fun. If you're to autistic to enjoy something simple and fun you're in the wrong hobby.
I agree with Sean Reynolds. He was in the right the entire time. People like to cite how casters are OP and yadda yadda yadda. I'd love to see people try to explain how casters are OP in a proper session. They dont get enough Spells per day to even warrant a legit threat to anything but the "Boss" Encounters. Last game my players wizard ran out of spells halfway through the dungeon because "Lawl Im a wizard OP" Then suddenly went "Oh fuck" As he was dead weight the rest of the dungeon because they couldnt set up camp and rest for 10 hours. The martial classes laughed their balls off at how the level 15 wizard became a gibbering idiot for nearly 5 hours of the session.
>I'd love to see people try to explain how casters are OP in a proper session.
Druid can fight better than fighter without casting a single spell, and even at low levels wildshape lasts most of the day.
If a rogue can catch an opponent when he is unable to defend himself effectively from her attack, she can strike a vital spot for extra damage.
The rogue’s attack deals extra damage any time her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC (whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not), or when the rogue flanks her target. This extra damage is 1d6 at 1st level, and it increases by 1d6 every two rogue levels thereafter. Should the rogue score a critical hit with a sneak attack, this extra damage is not multiplied.
Ranged attacks can count as sneak attacks only if the target is within 30 feet.
With a sap (blackjack) or an unarmed strike, a rogue can make a sneak attack that deals nonlethal damage instead of lethal damage. She cannot use a weapon that deals lethal damage to deal nonlethal damage in a sneak attack, not even with the usual -4 penalty.
A rogue can sneak attack only living creatures with discernible anatomies—undead, constructs, oozes, plants, and incorporeal creatures lack vital areas to attack. Any creature that is immune to critical hits is not vulnerable to sneak attacks. The rogue must be able to see the target well enough to pick out a vital spot and must be able to reach such a spot. A rogue cannot sneak attack while striking a creature with concealment or striking the limbs of a creature whose vitals are beyond reach.
A good game has rules which support and enable the experience of playing it. By this definition, 3.5 is a bad game.
Even without getting into the class imbalance 'debate' (there isn't a debate, you moron), the CR system is *utterly* broken. CR ratings for encounters are a good idea, letting a GM figure out how to give his players an interesting challenge, but the 3.5 implementation is worse than useless, actively lying to the GM in its own goddamn guidelines. If that's not bad game design, I don't know what is.
I do see that, And yes, Casters can do shit like that, But again the point is casters have a limit to what they can do in a standard session/day. Sure, They can totally fuck that dragon up in an insane manner, but oh look at that, Dawwww that wasn't the only major encounter you had to deal with and you are all spent like a man who banged a hooker and when he gets home his wife wants some action too.
Hey atleast the Martial class still has the ability to fight.
Druids and Clerics are another side of this story. They are the mixture of Martial and Caster. I agree that Druids and Clerics are pretty OP, as I usually play a Cleric when I play. But the saving throws against a Druid and clerics spells are generally not as hard to beat as a saving throw against a wizards spell.
I literally dont see your point here. I've been using of 3.PF for a better part of my life, switched from AD&D the second it came out. Its rules have supported and enabled the experience of playing it.
I really dont get what you mean about the CR. The times I did use it when I first started the ruleset it worked perfectly fine, and great in most instances. Is it because you've had nothing but bad experiences/GMs that you hate the system?
...Except, of course, if you throw a major encounter at a 3.5 party after the casters are all expended, the party is dead. It's why the 5 minute workday is a thing. When your casters are out of spells, you stop and take a break because nobody else can keep up.
The martials also have these expendable resources called HP and in some cases ammunition. If the wizard wasn't handling the encounters, they'd be eating shit. And if the casters weren't healing them, they would also be eating shit.
In your example you cited a 15th level wizard. That means at least 9 high-level spell slots, plus any bonus spells from high intelligence, not to mention a number of low-level spells and pearls of power - not to mention wands, staves and scrolls he can craft at affordable prices thanks to not needing to spend half his WBL on a magic weapon for when he truly needs to extend his resources per day. Yes, running out of spells is sometimes a problem - mostly at low levels or when the DM deliberately deprives the party of opportunities to rest - but unless the player is an idiot, it's not nearly as big a deal as you make it out to be, ESPECIALLY at high levels.
>If you're to autistic to enjoy something simple and fun
>simple OR fun
No, you are the autist. 3.5 managed to overcomplicate the rules to a stupid degree compared to AD&D while making a deliberate effort to streamline and standardize the game.
That's a nice strawman you've got there.
No one says 3.5 is a bad game because Pun Pun exists. 3.5 is a bad game because it's unplayably broken out of the box and only works if you ignore the rules as written and simply DM-Fiat your way passed the parts that don't make any sense.
It requires the DM to do double legwork, not just making a story and opposition for the players but also essentially reinventing the game as he goes along to make sure that all players are able to contribute (as opposed to them naturally being able to do so by following the rules) and not run roughshod over all problems with lolmagic (as they can do by following the rules).
Plenty of people have fun with it in spite of the system. That doesn't make the system good. It doesn't even make it acceptable.
If your encounters are all set up to have OP casters winning the day, thats your fault, not the game.
I've had plenty of encounters where the Fighter and Ranger worked together to completely destroy a half dozen amount of Trolls two CR above them with tactics and well placed guerrilla warfare while the caster sits on his ass back at camp complaining that he isnt getting XP.
You have to actually play 3.PF with any semblance of creativity with the martial style classes. If you just play the "I stand there. I roll to hit. I hit. Oh 5 damage" Then you are playing it wrong.
For example, my wife was playing a Two-weapons master fighter at level 7. She took a specific list of feats with two enchanted swords built around her style of play. In an average round of combat she could output 45-55 points of damage. She would use this to her advantage to quickly dispatch the weaker monsters in the encounter while the Cleric and Wizard of our group worked together to keep the Large Boss monster occupied. The entire encounter became a sweep and clear job with well placed tactics. After the weaker monsters were dispatched the Cleric and Fighter switched places so the Cleric can fall back and get some wards and toss some Healing-Wand spells up. It was a grand display of group mechanics, and how the 3.PF system classes work well together.
Also yknow, Dont be a dick DM and keep telling people that they cant buy magical gear/potions/gritty dark low fantasy muh immersion. martial classes are just fine with a few magical items, just like anyone else
>You have to actually play 3.PF with any semblance of creativity with the martial style classes. If you just play the "I stand there. I roll to hit. I hit. Oh 5 damage" Then you are playing it wrong.
This argument is bullshit. This argument has always been bullshit, because it is nothing to do with the system. The system never tells you to do this. The system never explains how to do this, or tells a GM to let you do this. By saying this, you're admitting the system is bad for martial characters. If you have to make shit up yourself for the game to actually work, then it isn't a good fucking system.
>You have to actually play 3.PF with any semblance of creativity with the martial style classes. If you just play the "I stand there. I roll to hit. I hit. Oh 5 damage" Then you are playing it wrong.
Too bad the actual rules completely fail to support that kind of playstyle.
A combination of market presence, inertia and nostalgia.
D&D has always been the biggest RPG, so it gets the most new players interested in games. And probably puts off a significant chunk of them due to it being, y'know, shit. Then there's inertia, with lots of groups who keep playing D&D because they've always played D&D and they don't see any reason to do things differently. And then you get the nostalgia and grognardery angle, the people who've been playing D&D for so long they can't conceive of a game outside of its framework. You've seen the sort on /tg/, the kind of people who consider anything more modern than a 2e retroclone 'Not a real RPG'.
>If you just play the "I stand there. I roll to hit. I hit. Oh 5 damage" Then you are playing it wrong.
Is that so? Care to provide some evidence to support that claim? You see, most people would look at the 3.5 system and notice that standing still allows you to full attack. The game literally gives you extra attacks for standing still and doing nothing but rolling to hit. You don't get anything for NOT using full attack, it's just a benefit for people who stand there and do nothing in a boring fashion. I'd hazard a guess that by standing there and doing nothing but attacking you are playing the game right.
Or were you referring to the lack of description in the attack? Does saying "I slash the orc across the chest, making his blood spray over the wall as he reels back from the pain. Whipping the blade back I quickly prepare to parry." despite the fact that none of that matters in the game mechanically (and you can't even parry). Even worse, the caster can literally do the same thing "His eyes glow bright white as the arcane energy swells in his hands. Chanting the ancient spell once more, orbs of pure energy fly from his hands, seeking out their targets without fail." but I guess "I cast magic missile. 5 damage." is okay in that case.
I think this is just bait shake my head to be honest senpai.
This really just seems like you're trying too hard. D&D is literally a game with loose guidelines to ensure that "making shit up" is allowed and encouraged. I walked into D&D a few years ago because of fantastical stories that allowed me to expect to be able to turn to my GM and say "What if I tried this?". Then again, my GM has always been the coolest flicker on the planet and a literal wizard, so I dunno.
>hurr rules light
Or maybe they just expect a game to be well made.
And 'content' is not a reason to play a fundamentally flawed game, if anything it has far too much content. Most of which will never be used.
Are you making a statement about GM permissiveness and how it affects games in general or arguing that 3.5 is balanced based on the examples you mentioned?
Because 3.5 is plenty fucked without them.
That's a complete cop-out though. It's not that I don't agree with what you're saying, but it's really not a viable defense for a bad system.
Yes, if the rules are bad you can just ignore them. But ignoring the rules doesn't make them not bad, and if you're going to ignore the rules anyway, why not use a system that is less bad to begin with?
There are certain things to say in defense of 3.x that are entirely reasonable, but "you can just ignore the bad parts" isn't one of them.
"It's fun" is an even worse argument. Of course it's fun. You're playing roleplaying games with your friends. If that's not fun there's either something wrong with you or with your friends. If you'd play any other system you'd almost certainly have just as much fun, because you'd still be playing roleplaying games with your friends.
"Fun" isn't something that's created by the system you use. Fun is created by the people you play with.
It's like, give a guy an old football and some mates to play with. He's going to have a good time. Does it matter if the football is half-deflated and smells awful? Hell no, he'll still have fun with it. But that doesn't mean it's not an awful football, and it doesn't mean that someone else looking at the football and noticing how it's awful is, in your words, "to autistic to enjoy something simple and fun".
Hurr dee durr the ruleset didnt say I could specifically be creative with a martial class. Oh woe is me da ruleset borked.
>Not able to put two and two together in a ruleset.
Read the rules again, Take everything in and actually put them together, and you'll find it does support this. No, the system doesnt say "And as a Martial you should really think about how to put your Physical skills and attributes to use, look around the battle field and manipulate it to the fullest." Because it shouldnt HAVE to say it. It isnt pandering to pantywaist manchilds with the creative juices of a ham sandwich, its literally giving you all the rules you need to run a game and lets you work them together with your brilliant mind.
Jesus fuck this generation, you can't function unless its spelled out to you word by word and all done for you.
Fuck had this same issue with a player before. A wizard with some fucking Lightning base spells, so I put a Lightning rod in a dungeon as a switch to deactivate a trap. He couldnt fucking put two and two together because his brain only functioned as "Lightning spell does 5d6 versus target." Not "Lightning spell is SHOOTING FUCKING LIGHTNING HOLY SHIT I CAN USE IT FOR MORE THAN COMBAT"
Its the same across the board with most of you, thinking the 3.PF system is complex and broken. Its not fucking broken, its got everything you need in it to run a game smoothly if you're not a fucking retard who can't function without wikipedia and google.
Jesus fuck the internet ruined Good rules heavy RPGs with these shitty rules-light "get away with what I can imagine" Forums and games, no one can appreciate a good rules-heavy well crafted system these days without complaining that its to complex or broken.
>D&D is literally a game with loose guidelines to ensure that "making shit up" is allowed and encouraged
...Have you just never played another RPG or something? 3.5 is crunchy as fuck. It is not rules light by any definition of the phrase.
>A lot of the people who call 3.5 broken site examples of exploits like Pun-Pun and Iron Heart Surge that rely on very specific interpretations of ambiguities in the rules.
I thought he sited examples like how a wizard can trivialize encounters single-handedly if they're prepared for them, and how the only thing martials get is "more damage" in a system the increasingly makes direct damage less and less viable as HP bloat and DR increase to the point where having some dudes who can assault your weaker saves is just the only rational option in high level play.
>"Fun" isn't something that's created by the system you use. Fun is created by the people you play with.
I take issue with this statement. The system you use can make a pretty fucking big difference in the amount of fun you're able to have. For instance, I imagine you probably would have decidedly less fun playing 3.5 at your game night than you would playing your system of choice.
Different systems do different things. Good systems do them well. Bad systems do them poorly. A bad system isn't going to help you have fun.
Be more subtle about it next time, senpai.
Because it's very hard to stab someone if you can't see them. That's assuming you're in total darkness and not just out at night. People without darkvision can see by starlight and moonlight, which is enough to get a sneak attack off.
You seem awfully salty about this, by the way.
Fuck off retard, every single combat maneuver in the game hits you with massive penalties if you try to attempt them without the appropriate feats. It's not hard to extrapolate from that.
>wanting the game to not be a high fantasy wonderland makes you a dick DM
God forbid people try to use the most popular fantasy system for something that is more grounded right? The mere existence of magic item shops completely ruins everything for many people, they don't want that kind of game.
Because penalties are a bad thing right? We dont ever want our characters to be able to fail at anything right?
No one likes challenge these days. Gotta make sure I get all them +'s and nothing -, Cause if I get a negative on my roll its the end of the fucking world and the system sucks.
Because a Negative to hit or an attack of opportunity is a punishment? Right, I see what you're saying. You're saying you dont like it when your precious character isnt perfect in every sense of the word.
I don't like 3.5 or really any of the editions derivatives because you have no idea of knowing how well you are doing or your chances of succeeding anything until after the fact and most of the time not even then. I hate hidden numbers, it's just needless obfuscation and only serves to make things frustrating, not mysterious or tense.
Need to hit a guy? You have no idea what his AC is or where it might be, so decide on how much of your limited resources you're going to spend and make a try at it anyways! You have no idea whether you'd wasting resources or making good use of them.
I much prefer success based systems like WoD or the fantasy flight star wars RPGs, or more open systems like Cypher or Fate.
>No, the system doesnt say "And as a Martial you should really think about how to put your Physical skills and attributes to use, look around the battle field and manipulate it to the fullest."
You're right, they just make it a much, MUCH worse option than just standing still and saying "I full attack".
>Because a Negative to hit or an attack of opportunity is a punishment?
Yes, taking attacks and huge penalties for daring to do anything other than full attack is a punishment for not full attacking.
You seem to be having a critical misunderstanding of what makes 3.5 shitty. Any game can be fun with a good GM and good players, even FATAL. Trying to claim that 3.5 is a good game because it's fun with a good GM and players is a non-argument, it's a tautology.
However, certain games become incredibly worse with a decent to poor quality GM because they are poorly written and the systems are not very fun to begin with. 3.5 falls into this category. There are so many ways for everything to go so wrong so quickly in the class progression, magical items, sourcebooks, and party balance that even a normally competent GM can fall into any number of pit traps during the game.
The strength of a system can be measured by how intuitive and easy it is to learn, how solid and unexploitable its rules are, and the toolbox that it gives to GMs and players to create adventures with. 3.5 is a game that has a very strong toolbox, but the system itself is unintuitive and clunky, not easy to learn because there's a bloat of rules and systems, and there are a number of problems in class balance, item balance, etc. that exacerbates problems like powergamers who might be less obnoxious in other systems.
Extreme outlier cases like Pun-Pun don't really pertain to the normal gameplay of 3.5, and I don't think anyone has ever argued that Pun-Pun is a normal representation of 3.5's gameplay. In that regard, you are only fighting a fictional argument.
Without improved feats you can't do maneuvers without chancing of getting hit in the face for attempting. You obviously lose the attempt if you get hit.
The sort of tripping, disarming, bullrushing... They are actually more dangerous than useful without the feats - the disarming for example. If you fail it, the enemy can attempt to disarm you as reaction, without provoking AoO, with melee attack.
*Disarm with opposed melee attack roll
Plus gaining improved trip or improved disarm is out of realm of typical fighter, anyway. You need at least 13 int and get another ( Combat Expertise ) before it.
CR for most basic (orc, owlbear, some other creature that doesn't really do anything but soak up damage and hit you) encounters works OK, but the way CR is calculated breaks very easily when you move into anything more complex. Spells and save-or-die effects are very difficult to take into account and can lead to even a supposedly low CR monster trouncing the party because proper usage of spells or bad rolls against SoD will fuck you up really quickly.
And then there's shit like That Damn Crab from Stromwracked, which is mathematically impossible to beat for a balanced CR-appropriate party because on average rolls you're not going to be able to do any damage on it.
Plus, due to class imbalance the given CR may not actually be appropriate for the party. A composed of low-tier characters like fighters and monks would be screwed against most supposedly appropriate CR encounters due to being considerably weaker than what the game treats as average party level. Meanwhile a full caster party will breeze through most encounters with CR considerably above their level.
Well, the way I see it, it isn't for the benefit of the gentleman in question, but rather those anons viewing the argument. Think of it this way: On one side, we have a grognard defending 3.5, spewing vitriol and mocking any coherent argument without offering any meaningful insights of his own. On the other side, various anons making structured arguments, citing examples from the rules, maintaining a sense of decorum. Let the man rattle his saber, the onlookers can draw their own conclusion.
I like 5th edition but 3.PF does have its good points. Its been around ages so it has a shitton of content, a lot of the stuff is availeable for free due to SRD, homebrewing stuff is very easy due to there being rules for just about anything, and you have a lot of freedom on how to make your character (admittably the horrible balance means that most of the options end up sucking).
5th edition has something that approaches balance (it's not perfect but at least it's not "fighter is useless and wizard is God" level bullshit) and clears up the huge amount of rule-bloat 3.PF has, but because it's also less flexible it's harder to homebrew stuff for and at times I think they simplified things too much. Like, the Advantage/Disadvanatge system is a good idea, but replacing pretty much all modifiers with it means you can't have smaller bonuses/penalties (Adv/Disad have a very large effect, so in effect it means you either get a massive bonus/penalty or none at all).
There's some archetypes that also aren't really supported at all in 5th edition rules (such as playing a summon-focused caster; admittably for a good reason as hat was the kind of thing that completely wrecked the action economy and massively contributed to casters being better than martials; what's the point of having a fighter when a wizard can simply summon an angel/demon/whatever that hits as hard as the fighter?).
When I decided to convert some homebrew stuff for 5th edition it was actually pretty shocking to notice firsthand just how much stuff had been removed, both stuff that deserved to get axed and stuff I didn't think was particularly complicated or needed removing. I ended up having to scrap/rewrite some pretty basic abilities because the mechanics they were based on no longer existed. Although in the end I think the final result turned out better than the original, admittably largely because I pretty much rewrote the whole thing, changing the basic concept quite a bit in the process.
>If you just play the "I stand there. I roll to hit. I hit. Oh 5 damage" Then you are playing it wrong.
Problem is that's pretty much literally all a fighter can do. A ranger or rogue at least have a lot of abilities and skills a smart player can use to their advanatge (ranger has a lot of knowledge about the enviroment and is expert at navigating his favoured terrain, which he can use to do all kinds of guerrilla shit on his enemies, while a rogue can sneak around and attack enemies unaware and has a ton of generally useful skills like lockpicking and siabling traps), but fighter has shit all for skills and his choise of actions boils down to "I move and attack" and "I stand still and make a full attack". The reason the spiked chain tripper is pretty much the only even vaquely useful fighter build is because at least that gives the fighter some kind of role/ability aside from "I stand here and it it with a sword".
The point is that we are still having this argument in 2015 BECAUSE people like this have now ruined three whole generations of roleplaying games. They brain damage new players entering the hobby until they also can no longer comprehend doing anything differently. Someone may be reading this thread and if that's the only argument they see they may even come to believe it's correct. If they see it enough times they may not even be able to imagine it being wrong, and the cycle repeats itself.
It is not enough to let them be wrong. In this instance, this stupidity must be shouted down.
We have played 3.5 for years. Same group ( +-2), ssame DM. Its rare we have ANY issues. Fun timed arebhsf by all.
With that being said, we have never made it past lv 11. Either from tpk, or we decided to start over. So I have never played the second"half" if the game.
A few trouble spots for us: cr can be tricky. A good gm will adjust things to make it work. So, not a huge deal, but for weak dm's, I can see it being an issue.
Wbl can confuse some people. Our group tends to spend massive amounts of coin, buying land, castles, staff. Thus, we aren't loaded to the hilt with magic items.
Basically, I think we're a slowed down version on 3.5, as opposed to the min max group trying to become as powerful ad possible.
It works for us. I can see where others struggle with it. It may not be a game for everyone.
Lemme explain it like this:
a Druid can get a wolf companion at level 1 and also summon a wolf. You know what a wolf can do that a fighter simply put cannot and can never do?
Trip and attack in the same round. Let that sink in. A druid can perform tactically viable combat maneuvers via its freaking MINIONS far more effectively than a fighter ever could.
Wolf nothing, have a trained riding dog and buy it cheap leather barding and you now have a 13 HP and 18 AC animal companion that also trips on attack, all at level 1. Fighters have to actually go out of their way to match those stats.
But to expand on the point, class balance matters in a team focused game. A roleplaying game is a group activity, everyone creating a character and telling a story together. But even if you're all on the same team, if one person is able to solve problems with a click of their fingers, and another is only marginally useful in a single situation, that's a fucking problem.
Gee, it's a shame he doesn't have an animal companion wolf to do the same thing. Or turning into a Wolf himself.
And that's being generous, assuming he doesn't just start casting spells at you while you're permanently on the ground because the wolf keeps tripping you.
I'm not sure why people feel the need to go to bat for this game still. 3.5 has been basically dead for nearly a decade now. If you're still playing it, you clearly like it enough that you don't care about other's criticisms and the people that aren't playing it are undoubtedly so sick of it they wont go back to it.
Directly, no it's not about class vs. class. It's about comparing each class' ability to be both effective in combat, and in other situations, be it social or adventuring. Can the fighter kill the wolf? Sure, but that's not the point, the point is that a druid can burn a spell to be as effective as the fighter, while maintaining the host of crowd control utility that the druid excels (perhaps a bit too well) in. Once wild shape is thrown into the mix, the druid can transplant the fighter without much trouble, using one of a myriad of abilities. At the same time, they have the skill points to be able to contribute in social situations, while the fighter does not. That's where the heart of the problem is, that fighters are so limited in terms of what they can do, and the options available to other classes make it so that fighters are often outperformed even at their specialty. This is one of the many reasons that people say that 3.5 is a poorly designed system.
3.PF is still a dominant force in the RPG industry. A lot of people these days use 3.5/PF interchangably, or the combined term 3.PF, because they're effectively one and the same. Paizo continue to peddle to that crowd and reap the rewards so they can fund their stupid ideas like that godawful MMO.
a Fighter gets 3 feats by then. Maybe 4 if he's human.
Lets be generous and say he has Intelligence 13 for Combat Expertise (even though some hardcore grognards will tell you that 3d6 down is the ONLY WAY to do things so enjoy that) and can get Improved Trip then.
They get two more feats but guess what? None of them let the Fighter attack and trip on the same turn. The Druid gets an ability at level 5 the Fighter can never achieve.
>AD&D is just a mess of retarded-ass rules that don't interrelate. Just like 3.5, but without the content.
>without the content
Spoken like a guy who wasn't there for the boom time of AD&D and hasn't looked at the mountains of stuff that came out for it in the period of 1977-2000.
And yeah, the rules "interrelate" even less than in 3E, which is why it's so much easier to alter it to taste without breaking stuff.
3E's main problem was WotC trying to fix shit that worked because it was ugly and they didn't understand why it was the way it was -- OD&D, Basic, and AD&D were built at the table via playtesting, with rules that worked made official and those that didn't discarded, creating a messy, organic system that ran great at the table, but had the disadvantage that it looked funky on paper.
I used to see that shit all the time in software development when a new team would be brought in and look at the code and go "Ugh!" and start throwing stuff out, only to replace it with nice clean new code that didn't work for shit, and slowly kludge in code to handle ttheyhe obscure corner cases and weird bugs until it started to work again, and not coincidentally to look a lot like the old code did. (Then the cycle would repeat itself with the next team.)
The general lesson is, if you don't understand why your predecessors did a thing, you're not ready to fix it yet.
Are you retarded? The wolf gets a grand +1 on its trip attempt. The fighter will be sporting around +7 thanks to improved trip and bring a PC. If the trip succeeds, he gets a free attack, now with the +4 thanks to prone. The only difference between wolf and fighter is that the order of trip and attack is reversed.
>He can buy a dog.
I assume he's wasting his precious few skill points in Handle Animal to make sure he can get the dog to do jack shit?
Assuming the Druid doesn't use his own Handle Animal skill(using a stat he's great in) to make friends with the Fighter's dog so he stops.
Also, using a potion provokes opportunity attacks, so tripped.
>He can buy a dog.
Dogs don't have special attacks, nor can they be used in combat without a significantly high Handle Animal check, which itself is a Standard Action to attempt, and you won't be making the DC much because it's not a class skill for you and your bonus is shit.
Animal companions and summoned minions don't need Handle Animal to direct, and come with their own attack actions that don't take your turn.
>ou trip an opponent in melee combat, you immediately get a melee attack against that opponent as if you hadn’t used your attack for the trip attempt.
I think his point was that a bad systems doesn't mean people won't have fun playing it, they'll be having fun for different reasons and the system might be hampering that fun but they can still have fun with a shitty system.
And therein lies the problem, something isn't fun because it's good, something is fun because there's things about the activity you enjoy, those things are good. So to see if something is good you can't look at whether it's fun or not, you have to look at the reasons why it's fun and then extrapolate from there.
To use a similar example, playing catch with a golf ball can be fun. However if you examine what you're doing you might notice the ball you're using is actually hampering your enjoyment of the activity. So you look at the features of the ball that are conducive to your enjoyment (it's round, fits in one hand well etc) and then you look at the features that are making the experience worse (it's too hard, it's too small etc) and then go on to look for a ball with the positive qualities and without the negative qualities. You end up with a tennis ball, which you might find is more fun to play with than the golf ball, if it isn't you re-examine the two and work out why it isn't
Or something like that, I got too deep into this metaphor and sort of forgot my point.
>all fighters can do is attack!! Fighters are to suck!!
>druids can summon!!!!
I guess all druids do is use their pet and summon shit to attack with. ( minus good armor, good HP, and extra feats)
Druids, seem like a pure shit class the way you all play them.
>minus good armor, good HP
Animal companions have some of the highest AC and HP in the early levels.
>and extra feats)
Who cares? Fighter feats are garbage unless you go outside of core, and at that point why aren't you playing another class anyways?
Fuck had this same issue with a player before. A wizard with some fucking Lightning base spells, so I put a Lightning rod in a dungeon as a switch to deactivate a trap. He couldnt fucking put two and two together because his brain only functioned as "Lightning spell does 5d6 versus target." Not "Lightning spell is SHOOTING FUCKING LIGHTNING HOLY SHIT I CAN USE IT FOR MORE THAN COMBAT"
>Jesus fuck the internet ruined Good rules heavy RPGs with these shitty rules-light "get away with what I can imagine" Forums and games
These seem contradictory. You criticize the players for not thinking outside the literal rules, and then criticize the sorts of systems that would encourage doing just that.
They also have spells and at 5th level can turn into animals themselves.
Druids have way more shit they can than the Fighter, even if you're trying to strawman it to making it sound really simple.
>Fighters can hit things and...uh..hit things
>Druids can get their pet bear to hit things, while also summoning bears to hit things, and turn into a bear to also hit things. And that's before you even start bringing his spells into it.
This is especially silly if the DM had never thrown a creative puzzle at them like that before, and I'd expect the DM never actually mentioned it being a lightning rod.
Not to mention that the Fighter can't really do jack shit with that info either, so he's even worse off than the hypothetical braindead Wizard.
Question: how many are in your group?
I will wager that its small. 1-2?
The 3.5 games I have been in, were awesome, with no major issues. But we had a small group. Never more than 3.
Is this the case with you? Because the bigger the group, the more issues you will find.
>I wanna play a druid!!
>cause I wanna play a nature lover type!
>(player then proceeds to treat animals as meat shields, and try to pick feats for power over rp).
This is how a lot of players play.
>I play druid!!!
>I summon fighting animals even though the fighter can handle it!
>I could help by healing, or entangling, or summoned fire, but fuck that...imma summon mindless animal fighters and then bitch that fighters suck!
And that...is how you RPG!!
Only on /tg/.
>power gaps between feats
Feats are solely about power. They can never be taken to flavor or fluff up a character. They are only in the game to make a character more powerful!
I once took stoic as a feat. It fit my character. It wasn't powerful. It wasn't adding to my abilities in any grand way.
Tg would say " you r dumb and don't know how to RPG".
>Uses a straw man
>Fails to defeat it as an argument
Please up your rhetorical game anon. And yes, the fighter is objectively trash if another class has multiple optional class features which can each replace the fighter if needed. The point isn't that summoning a bunch of animals is a good use of a druid. The point is that if the druid deigned to play the "stand there and full attack" game with mortal men he can do it better in every way and still be a caster on top of that.
It is not simply that the druids tools are better than the fighter, it's that the druids tools contain everything the fighter can do, but better, AND also include many other things which the fighter could never dream of doing.
>running out of spells at a level 15 wizard
How fucking garbage at planning are you? Holy shit. Literally all of your downtime as a wizard should be spent making items or scribing scrolls. You know, that bonus feat you get that says 'get as many spells per day as you can buy'. You being retarded does not make wizards bad. You and 3.5 deserve each other.
Since we are assuming that its a high magic setting, since druids are summoning animals every encounter, and that is the norm, I would say that items can easily replace any effect the druid can cause.
Is the druid now obsolete?
A bag of tricks or some statue can now replace the druid.
By inferior, do you mean "tougher", or " more powerful ", or " able to kill more", or " able to kill faster"?
Because I really don't see it as such a class vs class issue.
No, fighters don't cast spells like a magic user. That in no way means inferior. Unless the sole determining factor, is " what can kill the fastest".
If you're playing actual 3.5, the most expensive scroll you could make at that level is only 120 exp. If you're playing PF, there isn't an xp cost at all.
What items does your wizard need? You don't have to invest in the arms race nearly as badly as the martials, you should have whole pocket dimensions full of gold to burn on scrolls (and wands and potions) to exponentially increase how useful you can be a day. Unless you're playing a kind of wizard that burns through cash, like an animation focused necromancer because you really are an idiot, or your DM is intentionally gold starving you, the money is there.
The only valid complaint. If you're in a meat grinder campaign with no downtime, you can't make scrolls. But those are the worst kinds of games, so still your fault for being involved.
You mean in a PvP way?
Or a pve way?
Because if its pve, that totally depends on the setting. A city campaign, with a mystery to solve, would limit some low lv classes much worse than others.
He means weaker for the same pve role as a comparable character built to minmax, ya dingus. Every class has a particular role they're clearly advertised to fill (except for casters, whose role is "all of the roles"), but usually there's only a few specific ways to build a character that won't seriously hinder your ability to pull your weight in that role.
And besides which:
>A city campaign, with a mystery to solve, would limit some low lv classes much worse than others.
Yeah, mostly the non-casters. With the way the skill list is so bloated with a bajillion different specific skills, even high-skill classes like the rogue can rarely manage to be good at more than one noncombat role via their skill points. Even in PF, with the more consolidated skill list, it takes a good half-dozen skills or so to cover a given role out of combat. And low-skill martials like the fighter can pretty much forget about being relevant outside of combat entirely.
Meanwhile, a caster can easily have plenty of tools at their fingertips to competently cover any role, whether in or out of combat, because spells can do anything skills can and then some.
No they don't. Almost everyone who says 3.5 is broken cite the core rules in the least ambiguous way possible, specifically those governing spells, such as sleep and fly, which generally allow magic-using characters to dominate the entire game by casting spells that de-fang the challenge and side-step combat or danger entirely.
Not that combat would be fun since it's just repeating the same obvious actions over and over until the monsters' HP is 0. Sure you can fluff anything you want and just fiat your way to victory, but at that point you've admitted the rules serve no purpose other than to limit your ability to have fun.
I have a feeling, that ANY game minmaxers play, will be "broken".
Those that claim 3.5 is so 'imbalanced', tell me what game you do play that isn't. And explain why it does a better job of balancing?
All games have inherent imbalances, unless they are games purely without agency, like actually tossing a coin.
But to answer the question specifically: some games use better probability distribution (GURPs), some games use more homogenized power curves (4e), and some games deemphasize mechanical silver bullets (pick any narrative game). 3.5's specific problem is that it uses a horribly swingy dice system with exponential gulfs in power between character options while allowing some of those options to be win buttons. The triple threat.
>Maybe because they don't like carbon copy classes? Or every class being a psuedo mage.
Neither of these things are true and anyone who's played 4e knows this. It's the only DnD I still dabble, personally.
Also your question wasn't 'name me a a game that isn't broken that I like', it was 'name me a game you play that isn't imbalanced'.
You are ALSO making the common (at least among 3.5 players) mistake of assuming that anyone who understands how the system works (and therefore how it is broken) is a min-maxer. Please don't do this, it's intellectually dishonest. Just because I know that Toughness is worthless (not even in a flavor sense is it useful) and Natural Spell is amazing doesn't mean I'm automatically a min-maxing powergamer.
You all know that even though "equality" sounds neat, it doesn't exist where choices are involved.
In real life, or ttrpgs.
Person A chooses to be a doctor. Person B isn't smart enough, so he becomes a ditch digger.
Player A is a 18 dex rogue. He hides well.
Player B is a high strength fighter. He doesn't hide well.
Different picks lead to unequal results. Deal with it.
Let's use a very simple example.
The fighter's role is to fight. Obvious enough. That is to say, he kills things and is tough enough not to get killed himself.
Now, there are a lot of different ways you can build your fighter. What weapon do you want to use? What kind of tactics?
You'd best tread carefully, because half the options that are presented to you are complete and utter traps. You'd think sword-and-board would be a nice safe choice, right? Think again -- the AC bonus a shield provides rapidly becomes irrelevant in the face of ballooning enemy attack bonuses, and the damage you can deal will be a fraction of what you could be putting out with a greatsword and Power Attack.
You want to be a guardian type, use a halberd to hold enemies at bay? Well, about the only way to accomplish that is by tripping with attacks of opportunity, so you're going to need to sink half or more of your feats just into being able to trip at something halfways resembling a decent chance of success. And even with that copious amount of investment, an ever-increasing proportion of the things you fight will be extremely difficult if not outright impossible to trip due to large size, high Str, multiple legs, and/or flight. Not to mention that even attempting this sort of build means you need at least 13 Int (to get the completely useless Combat Expertise feat on your way to Improved Trip) and as much Dex as you can get (to be able to control enemy action with Combat Reflexes), which is not easy to pull off when you also need high Str for tripping and high Con to not die on the front lines.
And it's not like the optimal approach of Power Attacking with a greatsword makes you some kind of overpowered god of war; it just puts you at a level of damage output that actually halfways resembles your advertised strength as a combatant. Stray from that Ivory Tower-approved build choice, and you can't even reliably pull your weight in the very role your class is fucking named for.
As since 4th works for you, and is balanced, why are you here crying and gnashing teeth in a 3.5 thread?
Is it because literally almost no one plays that crap edition, and the majority play 3.5?
Care to actually make an argument?
>As since 4th works for you, and is balanced, why are you here crying and gnashing teeth in a 3.5 thread?
I'm not crying, I'm just pointing out how you moved the goalposts when another anon answered your question on what RPG's are more balanced.
Also the Pathfinder threat is somewhere else in the catalogue, this is a 'why 3.5 is disliked' thread.
>Is it because literally almost no one plays that crap edition, and the majority play 3.5?
If the majority of teens reading Twilight and Eragon didn't bother me, the majority of DnD players having similarly terrible taste won't ruffle me either.
Popularity is no sign of quality, and thankfully my RPG group is in the same boat on that score.
>thread about why 3.5 is broken
>how dare someone respond!
4e is more balanced because it's virtually impossible to pick powers that will make you too strong or too weak. All the choices are mostly down to personal preference. There is not really a way to "win" character creation.
Pre-3.x games are balanced because there's almost no character customization AT ALL. You just pick a race and class. Your abilities are probably random if your GM is a grognard, but even if you're able to point buy or assign from array, you're probably just going to gravitate towards what's obvious (STR for fighter, INT for wizard, everyone dumps CHA unless they need it). Wizards aren't strong enough to break the game down to "everyone should play a wizard" nor is any other class.
You pretty much have to go out of your way to make a character who can't pull his weight at his main role, and it's trivial to make a character who can contribute outside of his main schtick without compromising that main schtick thanks to the way the skill and Specialty systems are set up. On the other hand, it's exceedingly difficult to make a character who outright trivializes challenges the way casters do in 3.PF, and such minmaxed characters always have major weaknesses that can be easily and specifically exploited to keep them in check without making the whole party suffer with them. Casters have sufficiently limited juice and potency of spell effects to avoid making nonmagical solutions obsolete. Different ways of approaching a character are equally supported, usually in an apples-to-oranges way that makes it impossible to clearly define one as strictly superior to the other regardless of context.
The NPC creation system can be broken pretty easily if you put your mind to it, but they specifically admit and warn you about that in the book, and explain that the NPC system is intended to be used in certain ways by reasonable GMs. And they then provide plenty of detailed guidance on what they mean by that, how to build NPCs as the system is intended to work.
There are a few problems aside from that (bows are a bit overpowered, and crossbows woefully underpowered), but they're far less numerous and worlds easier to fix than the sprawling, endemic issues in 3.PF.
>It requires the DM to do double legwork, not just making a story and opposition for the players but also essentially reinventing the game as he goes along to make sure that all players are able to contribute (as opposed to them naturally being able to do so by following the rules) and not run roughshod over all problems with lolmagic (as they can do by following the rules).
While that was true, it's not true any more. I'm not saying that the 3.5 design was great, but if you're rolling in the whole print run and the most mainstream of analysis (Tier theory) handling class balance gets done just once in the campaign.
Indeed. Even if you don't take the whole massive caster vs martial disparancy into account, Fighter is still pretty much useless because all he does is one thing and he isn't even very good at that thing.
A Ranger or Rogue or something, while not objectively as powerful as a Wizard or Druid, still has a lot of useful skills thta allow them to perform a variety of different things, and while the caster can do the same things (detect trap and knock to replace the Rogue for finding traps and opening locks, for example), they'd still be glad to have one around since it frees their limited spell slots for other things.
But all Fighter can do is attack in melee. He doesn't have access to many useful skills or some class-specifc ability. All he does is do damage in melee, a role that can be trivially filled by another class that also has a variety of other uses (a Cleric or Druid can make decent melee fighters while also having full casting abilities, a Paladin is a pretty much a Fighter with divine powers, etc.). Hell, a lot of those classes actually do the Fighter's one job better than the Fighter while also being able to do other things.
People are still going in to bat for 0D&D, which hasn't had an official expansion since the 70s.
3.5 remains alive and well because it still has a large gaming community around it. People keep making new stuff for the game, from adventures to play at their own table on up to Pathfinder. Wizards believed that they could move that community over to their new games just by slapping the D&D logo on it and were punished for that arrogance during 4E. Just how well they do with sucking people into 5th has yet to be seen.
Last time I looked at FC it was heinously complicated to the extent that doing serious CharOp was an exercise in frustration. I did look for (and find) a way to avoid some of the MAD that the designers seemed to think was good class design. Pointing this out made FCfags angry and I was basically told to stop looking behind the screen lest I offend the Mighty Oz.
If there'd been some dissenting voices in that community saying, "Yeah, that's a problem alright," then I'd take them more seriously, but you guys basically come across as a cult.
...Do you realize how stupid you look replying to a post about a system being balanced and hard to break with a complaint about how hard it is to do "serious CharOp"?
Now, I can see the complaint about FC being "heinously complicated' -- or at least it certainly seems that way to a newcomer. It's actually a lot more straightforward than it looks at first glance, but that first glance is pretty bewildering due to the godawful way in which the corebook is organized (or rather, not organized). That's a legitimate problem, and probably the number one most commonly cited (including by fans of the system). It really is actually quite straightforward to use once you manage to untangle where everything is, though.
But difficulty in making a highly-optimized SAD character is not exactly a mark against the system's balance. More a complaint about differing design philosophies, and if anything it only supports my point about the system making it difficult to build a character who can bend the campaign over his knee.
A rogue can help a wizard free up spell slots. True.
A fighter can do that as well, if the caster doesn't focus on combat spells.
What's the difference?
Its casters choice m8. He picks/uses his spells as he wants. If the fighter can handle the damaging the enemy part, the wizard/druid can use his spells for other things.
Roles. Who does what?
If a druid wants to be a fighter, and fill that role, then fine. There is no balance issue, only a preference.
A group that made a fighter, druid, war mage, cleric, pally; and all are filling the fighting/damaging role...could be fun. Would be severely weakened in certain encounters though.
You know, one of these days, should I ever get into a 3.5, I'll make a fighter. Just a fighter.
And you know what I'm gonna do? Every time combat starts, no matter how small or big it is, I will just sit in a corner. That's all, nothing but sit. And when the other party members call for me, I'll just go, "But I thought you casters can do everything by yourselves."
Assclowns seem to forget that roleplaying is a fucking TEAM game.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that I didn't express myself very well.
My main point is that FantasyCraft is not unbreakable. It takes a lot of effort to intentionally break because it's so complicated, but luck can always be substituted for effort.
As supporting evidence of that: despite the designers trying to balance the game by pushing MAD, SAD characters can be made.
None of that supports your argument. To me, you sound like one of those guys who says 3.5 has no issues because the clerics just heal, the fighters just fight, the wizards just blast, and the rogues just search for traps.
Team games are only fun if everybody on a team can contribute.
If you're playing a core fighter, whether you actually bother rolling a single attack in combat is unlikely to make much difference.
>Assclowns seem to forget that roleplaying is a fucking TEAM game.
The whole crux of the problem is that some of these classes suck bear cocks at contributing to the TEAM part of the TEAM game, you mongoloid.
So one of the casters will instead go big beefy fight guy (aka they will already be playing a cleric or a druid) or they will bite the bullet and blast.
Fighter is replaceable. So are you, you petulant cuck.
In a system where there are no actual mechanics for that? I mean, AoO's do something, but one fighter isn't going to stop an enemy just walking around you and shanking the wizard unless you're in a perfectly straight corridor.
>needing a meatshield
>Druid comes with a free meatshield that's a better meatshield than the fighter at level 1
>Cleric is a better meatshield than the fighter
Beyond level 1 even clothies don't need meatshields. Hell, 3.5 meatshields in suck pretty hard at keeping a determined enemy off a caster's dick.
>I'll show them how to play a team game by purposefully making a character that's weak and compounding the problem by not contributing at all!
The people you're arguing with are just saying that:
is a weaker party than
because the latter party is better able to solve encounters. That's what a class balance argument is about - the idea that one class is strictly better as part of a team than another.
I will make a mage, and focus on spells to defeat traps! Then I will call the rogue ' worthless'.
Then, I will make a druid, and instead of healing and nature stuff, I will focus all feats and spells on summoned animal fighters. Then I will call fighters 'useless'.
Thats how you _d&d.
And every situation, "there is a spell for that! And the caster just happens to have access to it".
Impressive snowflakes, these " 3.5" casters are.
And luckily, they are all high level at all times.
It's a combination of both.
Whenever the flaws in 3.5 are pointed out to 3eaboos they chimp out immediately and start burning as many strawmen as they can find and calling everyone powergaming minmaxers.
It's easier to just ignore them, but I suppose that stage has already passed with the creation of this thread.
Yeah, no. Why are you lying about what's being said rather than looking at the obvious evidence?
A 3.5 caster doesn't need to know every spell, or be high level, or perfectly predict every counter. A decent spell selection at any level and you will have more ability to solve problems than any other class in the game. And that's on top of other useful class features in cases like the Druid and the Cleric.
So I guess you missed the druid getting an animal companion at level 1
Or wild shape coming at level 5
Or the fact that divine casters pick and choose what spells they have prepared, sorcerers pick what spells they learn, and even wizards get two free spells a level. Right in the corebook.
As are most of the 'I have a spell for that' spells, come to think of it.
You asked about systems that were balanced, not about systems that were unbreakable. You're moving goalposts here.
Plus, I never said it was unbreakable. I said that it was very difficult to break, and the ways in which it can be broken are trivial to correct. Contrast 3.PF, which is so riddled with balance issues and gamebreaking exploits that you'd need pages upon pages of houserules to even begin correcting for them all.
So on top of moving goalposts, you're misrepresenting my argument, and applying an extremely disingenuous nirvana fallacy by considering any flaws or weaknesses whatsoever as equivalent to the whole hot mess that 3.PF is notorious for.
Sadly, you CAN'T ignore them. It's pretty much like >>44643333 and >>44643583 said. Ignoring them just makes people that don't know better think it's ok. Ignoring them has ruined a generation and a half. They have to be firmly rebuked at every turn, least the truth get ignored.
You know this is a really weird thread for me. I've always stayed away from edition war stuff, hell when I joined /tg/ I think the embers of of 4th were just dying down and I'll admit I've not played a great deal of D&D but the inertia is shocking.
What is it that made 3.PF just stick? Because it's not a well built game that much is obvious but why was the transition for 2nd to 3rd and it's derivatives so total yet they hold an audience like glue?
I mean are they really the best "I wanna play a game where I'm a wizard, Tim's a fighter, Harry's a thief and Tabitha's a cleric." games on the market? Has nothing with the mechanic depth happened or is it just so much infrastructure is in place it's like trying to move from an Indian slum to Lewisham?
>So your logic is, " druids get animal shape at lv 5, So fighters aren't good".
Are you incapable of reading more than a sentence at a time?
The druid animal companion is better than the fighter and they get that at level one.
Clerics are better off the bat. Casters can freely perform the fighter's role better than the fighter can while still being casters, and even partial casters can do the fighter's job and get magic dumped into the package (Paladins).
Well, if its breakable, someone will break it. And then someone else will look at the break, and declare it to be a system problem.
Instead of pointing at shit tier DM and players.
For the sake of discussion, I'd like to approach this from another angle. Instead of comparing the Fighter with the Wizard, why not the Paladin?
They have the same saves, same BaB, nigh-identical weapon/armor proficiencies (Fighter does have his Tower Shield here). Skills are different, but skill points are an equal and abysmal 2/level, so let's discard that as largely irrelevant.
By and large, this discussion, and most such discussions, come down to the respective classes' special abilities. Let's compare these at early levels.
Paladins come racing out of the gates with Smite Evil, Detect Evil, Divine Grace, Lay On Hands, Aura of Courage, Divine Health, and eventually a Special Mount. Now, I make no pretense that these are all always useful (I didn't bother to mention Aura of Good, which is largely flavor). However, none are useless, and several can prove extremely helpful.
Fighters gain a handful of extra feats. I would contend that few feats, particularly in core 3.5 are as useful as most of those Paladin abilities, especially those available to the fighter, and most of those do require lengthy feat chains to access. The fighter's advantage is that these feats have no explicit use limits or restrictions, and that they are free to tailor this list to their and the campaign's needs.
Neither of these classes is earth-shattering, by any means, at least not at early levels. The difference is, every feature of the Paladin is independently effective at what it's intended to be, whereas the feats that a fighter is supposed to define himself by are mostly very minor improvements or feat chain requisites. Even in terms of limited-use effects, a Paladin has 4 functional, unlimited-use abilities before the fighter gets his third bonus feat. The ability to tailor a character to suit the challenges of a campaign is not a bad one, but the fighter's ability to do so in limited to 3.5's feats, which are neither as effective nor as universally applicable as they might appear.
No, the logic is "Fighter can only fight(and not very well), Druid can fight very well and do lots of other things on top of fighting".
I mean, if you want to continue thinking that the Fighter is good or something, feel free to, but the Fighter gets jack shit for skills and has some of the worst saves in the game, both of which are horribly crippling weaknesses.
>You asked about systems that were balanced, not about systems that were unbreakable. You're moving goalposts here.
No, I didn't. There are more than two people in this thread, you retard.
>Plus, I never said it was unbreakable. I said that it was very difficult to break, and the ways in which it can be broken are trivial to correct.
I don't believe that the latter claim has been substantially tested. Very few people play Fantasy Craft and they're generally of the opinion that the thing is unbreakable - in other words, they don't try.
>Contrast 3.PF, which is so riddled with balance issues and gamebreaking exploits that you'd need pages upon pages of houserules to even begin correcting for them all.
This was, no doubt, the design philosophy behind Fantasy Craft, but it's not true. People play 3.5 with sweeping houserules, like, "These are the only available classes."
>So on top of moving goalposts,
Which I didn't do, you just fell into the "only one person will talk to me" fallacy.
> you're misrepresenting my argument,
That's your sin, not mine.
> and applying an extremely disingenuous nirvana fallacy by considering any flaws or weaknesses whatsoever as equivalent to the whole hot mess that 3.PF is notorious for.
And this here is a whole extra straw man, because NOBODY has said that.
All that said, you have confirmed my original point in >>44650550 that the Fantasy Craft community are a bunch of crazed cultists who cannot rationally engage with criticism of their idol.
Honestly, at level 1, a wolf does more damage and scales better than the fighter.
2d8+4 HP beats 1d10+4 HP, and AC isn't honestly much better without expending chunks of money. Free trip attack on a hit and faster.
And it's free at level 1 in addition to a druid getting all his casting abilities too.
>For the sake of discussion, I'd like to approach this from another angle. Instead of comparing the Fighter with the Wizard, why not the Paladin?
Basically, because the Paladin isn't considered substantially better than the Fighter. If you want to go with something more like apples and apples, try comparing the Fighter to the Warblade or the Crusader.
Suppose that the Druid invests their feats and class features into combat so that they can out-perform the Fighter. They still have more skill points per level and more class skills. So at 1st level, the Druid can pick two of these things to do that the Fighter can't:
>not be surprised (Listen)
>get on in the wild (Survival)
>handle a negotiation (Diplomacy)
So, if you grant that the Druid's animal companion and spells are better class features for solving combat encounters than what the Fighter gets (and they definitely are), then the Druid is strictly better as part of an adventuring party because they can do everything the Fighter does - and a little bit more.
Consider two games.
Game A can be broken, by a determined player, in a very few specific and ways. But unless you specifically go looking for it, you're highly unlikely to stumble into such an exploit, and even if you do the exploit is easy to counter via a simple, specific adjustment in GM tactics. If you absolutely must houserule anything, the houserules are very trivial, one-line tweaks, and the full set of houserules you might need to patch the holes in the system can fit on one side of a single page with room to spare. Looking at the lower end of the character power spectrum, you pretty much have to specifically go out of your way to build a character who'd be dead weight to the team.
Game B is so thoroughly riddled with ways to be broken that people routinely stumble into them with no effort or intention to do so just by picking thematically and intuitively logical options. Many very basic character types are very poorly-equipped to pull their weight adequately, often requiring extensive optimization just to perform their primary function properly, and rarely capable of contributing in any way outside of that one trick. A "typical" party will quite often involve extreme disparities in character competencies, where some characters carry the team in everything while the rest are more glorified sidekicks in terms of what they actually bring to the table mechanically. These issues are so widespread and deeply-embedded in the system that you'd need dozens of pages of complex houserules to get anywhere close to an adequate solution -- essentially rewriting entire swaths of the system entirely.
These two games are by no means equivalent. In other words, just because it's not perfect doesn't mean it can't still be a vast improvement. Game balance and soundness is a spectrum, not a quantized binary.
True enough, just sticking to core here.
I believe this mostly stems from the fact that, quite frankly, the designers were trying to convert an old-fashioned game to be more accessible (hear me out on this one) compounded by the SRD drawing drove upon drove of new players (myself included) to the game and hobby.
2e, as has been mentioned, is a hodgepodge of systems, dice, and numbers, fairly imposing to those unfamiliar. The community was much more insular, and the popular (and published) "style" of game was the unforgiving, save-or-die, dungeon survivalism now commonly associated with OSR. Houserules were largely confined to the house, small online communities existed to discuss games but nowhere near the scope of those to come.
3e was where Wizards took over, and attempted to streamline things into what is now the d20 system so that it came across as a more organized product as opposed to the organic collections of houserules its predecessors had evolved towards. A hilarious amount of tables were drafted to ensure that it felt more like a game and less like make-believe as ad-libbed by the DM. Characters became more survivable (also weakening the Fighter's niche), customizable, and mechanically complex, to make players feel more attached to them and their stories - possibly influenced by videogames of the era (few of which featured any kind of permadeath and often the protagonist was somehow key to the plot).
All this contributed to a possibly unintentional smothering of the "describe what your character would do, and they can just do it!" factor, particularly in combat. Attempting to grab the fairy making off with your pack was possible, but heavily impeded - you'd want grapple feats, a high attack bonus, all kinds of things, or you'd be rolling at a steep penalty. If there is a feat to do something, there is now an implicit or explicit penalty or impossibility to do it without that feat.
So the druid is filling the combat role normally filled by a fighter.
Example: a mage focuses on spells that defeat traps. Thus eliminating the rogues role.
In that example, its possible that the mage will do better than the average rogue. However, now the mage isn't as versital as he could be. He is spending his spells replacing another class. He won't be casting damage spells, or grease, his spells are used up by being a roguemage.
Same with a druid. If the druid is just an animal meatshield summoning guy, then he isn't as versital anymore.
He may be better in combat, but he is now not as handy outside combat.
Unless druids and mages are able to cast unlimited spells.
At level 1 the druid is a slightly less capable fighter and a slightly less capable wizard because he has an animal companion and can cast spells slightly less good than a wizard.
He is two characters at once and can do twice as many actions.
At level five, the druid is two fighters, or a fighter and a wizard, or two fighters one of which can also cast spells that buff both fighters at once.
WHAT PART OF ANIMAL COMPANION BEING A CLASS FEATURE SEPARATE FROM SPELLCASTING DON'T YOU GET
YOU DON'T HAVE TO SUMMON AN ANIMAL COMPANION IT STAYS WITH YOU PERMANENTLY
YOU LITERALLY FULFILL THE FIGHTER'S ROLE WITH IT AS A MELEE COMBATANT WHILE ALSO CASTING SPELLS
>If the druid is just an animal meatshield summoning guy, then he isn't as versital anymore.
That's not how Druids work. You get summon spells, an animal companion, and wildshape regardless of what you do.
>Same with a druid. If the druid is just an animal meatshield summoning guy, then he isn't as versital anymore.
Let's grant that for a moment. Even buying your analysis, the Druid is still more versatile than the fighter. So if you're talking about "what's better for the party?" then the Fighter gets changed out for the Druid. That is exactly what people mean when they say that the Druid outclasses the Fighter or makes him redundant. The Druid is a strictly better option for doing what the Fighter does!
>He may be better in combat, but he is now not as handy outside combat
Now let's suppose that the Druid needed to be converted over to fill another role tomorrow. Well, you might not be able to do that perfectly, because the feats would be tied up. But the spells can be changed without any problems. You just can't do that with the Fighter. So in reality, the Druid does NOT lose versatility when they make the Fighter obsolete. Their versatility just is what makes the Fighter obsolete!
And we didn't even touch on the versatility of converting to Summon Nature's Ally, or start getting past the Fighter's "peak" at 1st level!
>So the druid is filling the combat role normally filled by a fighter.
By using its animal companion, not spells.
>the druid is filling the face role normally filled by a bard
By using extra skill points to put in diplomacy.
>the druid is filling the skillmonkey role normally filled by a rogue
By using spells.
It can do all three of these things in one day, while any other party member can only do one thing in one day.
Add to all this the SRD, which brought in multitudes of new players otherwise daunted by the price tag on nerd books, taught them the rules, but gave them no free content on which to base their games. There's an explosion of every and any kind of game, shoved into this framework for no better reason than that it was free and they didn't know anything else. The Internet doesn't help, either, as people are free to share terrible homebrew and houserules. The survivalist dungeon-crawlers are few and far between in this new wave of games, but everyone else is all having fun with this D&D thing, and nerds are always bitching about something on the Internet anyway, so 3.5 didn't really change too much of what they had going.
So it's at once a much more complicated game than they had tried before. Nobody's running the dungeon adventures that they had balanced the system around, where resource management is key. They've reinvented nearly every system around a swingy die formerly used mostly only for combat, and made the entire world a lot less likely to kill you if you make a wrong move. The game is also suddenly much more meticulous, punishing improvisation in combat, quite possibly in ways added mid-playtesting that weren't properly calibrated. So the dynamics that used to work are broken, and Paladins outshine Fighters.
Not to mention a lot of their abilities in previous editions were retained as legacy features, despite them being deliberately and explicitly "Fighters but better" in most incarnations.
That's a bridge too far. Diplomacy might be on the bard's skill list, but it's not their only or even their main thing.
The druid can't cover the bard's enabling routine while doing other things. In fact, the druid can't enable other characters to the same extent that the bard can.
3.5 breaks down because any of my casters can clown on anyone playing a martial class to an absurd degree. None of the other D&D editions or Pathfinder have addressed that problem and they almost certainly never will.
You don't need some weird edge case here, any wizard that's been put together with half a brain will do.
They also took out the class ability requirements, which makes Paladins actually a viable class most of the time.
>None of the other D&D editions or Pathfinder have addressed that problem
Have you ever played a pre-3 edition of D&D?
It should be mentioned that lightning bolt doesn't actually behave like lightning in any way. If it hits something made of metal it doesn't diffuse, it melts it and continues on its course unimpeded. It isn't attracted to metal objects, and if it hits something, but can't complete a circuit, it still does full damage. So yeah. Saying that lightning magic should act like electricity for the purposes of a puzzle, when it doesn't in literally every other situation, isn't really an issue with the player's lack of creativity.
>implying they have to be effective when your move speed in heavy armour is 20 and a horse's is 50
>implying at level 5 your will save of +1+ dump stat will be saving anything
>implying we can't just hide in a forest with Tree Shape
>implying we can't just snipe you with throw fire from 120 feet away
>implying you can hit worth a damn at that range even with bows, and good luck having two high stats and making saving throws
actually forget it, it's a stupid argument that's been done to death
Look we all know that 3.5 is the best edition of D&D and we all know it well because no other system gives you the Sentinal of Bharrai.
>Bear Shape (Su): At 3rd level, the sentinel of Bharrai gains the ability to turn himself into a black bear, brown bear, or polar bear (and back again). The selected bear form's Hit Dice cannot exceed the sentinel of Bharrai's character level.
>Dire Bear Shape (Su): At 7th level, a sentinel of Bharrai can turn himself into a dire bear and back again. This ability is otherwise the same as the bear form ability gained at 3rd level.
>Cavalry of Dire Bears (Sp): Once per week beginning at 9th level, a sentinel of Bharrai may call 1d6 dire bears with maximum hit points (147 hp each) to aid him in battle. The dire bears appear instantly and remain until the battle has ended, at which point they disperse into the wild. If a dire bear falls in battle, animal's corpse remains, and the sentinel of Bharrai is expected to use whatever parts of the animal he can (such as the meat, skin, and bones) and commit the rest to the earth. Failing properly honor a fallen dire bear results in a 20% cumulative chance that the animals do not come the next time they a called.
BEAR ADMIRAL CALL BEAR CAVALRY
>fighters all have quickened dimension door as a spell-like ability unlimited times per day
>they're also allowed to act after using this ability
Sounds like you have some interesting house rules.
No they don't, they cite the game breaking gulf between caster and noncaster that shows up at the basic level of play involving only the basic core books.
Charop is shit they do for giggles.
>What is it that made 3.PF just stick? Because it's not a well built game that much is obvious but why was the transition for 2nd to 3rd and it's derivatives so total yet they hold an audience like glue?
The conversion from 2e to 3e wasn't total. There was a massive edition war then too. The reason the 3e playerbase is so big is because TTRPGs went through a massive revival in the early to mid 2000s. Absolutely tons of people joined the hobby during that time and started with the current edition (3.x). Relatively fewer people have joined the hobby since then because trends change and TTRPGs have mostly fallen by the cultural wayside.
>run gesalt games
>never have a problem because actually use the ecl calculator and shit in the books
>everyone loves my games
>fix classes as needed
>people who cant leave well enough alone face when
>The martial classes laughed their balls off at how the level 15 wizard became a gibbering idiot for nearly 5 hours of the session.
Is this from some Pasta? Because the Wizard still has half BAB. All he needs is a ranged weapon with extended crit range, and he is golden without spells.
Thats ignoring the fact he could just turn all his lower level spell slots into Save or Die spells, to literally conserve his actual spell slots.
Or that both Druid and Cleric has almost full BAB.
You seem to not understand how words work, because that bit was saying how the wizard could have avoided running out of spells in the first place, not what the wizard could do when out of spells.
>>If you have 6 inventory slots, and you have the choice between 6 cruise missiles and 6 bullets
>>You should have picked the cruise missiles, or at the least something worth more than single bullets
>I should claim its about having more inventory slots!
Pathfinder, aka 3.75, aka heavily houseruled 3.5 the system that Sean K Reynolds was working for.
The person saying "spellcasters will run out of spells" is supporting a person who gave spellcasters infinite spells per day.
Well, the other anon, then.
So I can see how casters are great and martials are suck.
Since all encounters start far enough away to give casters plenty of time to cast some of their unlimited never miss spells that no one ever saves against.
Someone compared the system to the ball saying that the ball is what lets you have fun kicking a ball around with friends. The fun doesn't come from the ball itself, it comes from the time you spend with your friends doing what you enjoy. Likewise, spending time with a good group and a good DM who both know how to have fun and playing pretend with them is what creates the fun, not the system itself.
You can still have fun with a rotten, half-deflated ball, because the ball still functions on some basic level. That doesn't mean it wouldn't be much nicer to have a well-inflated ball that isn't rotting and doesn't have the skin peeling off it. Likewise, you can have fun with your friends while using a poorly-designed and imbalanced system that is 3.5 or Pathfinder, but that doesn't mean your group wouldn't benefit from a better system.
Dont forget that that bear companion will know any and all tricks along with be able to stop all attacks verses its master and do not lose their bonuses or mind when their master is killed.
They do if you build your wizard right! Just one or two spells will buff your initiative up to huge levels, and you can shove nerveskitter, the level 1 spell, on a magic item for use at will for 1000 GP, a pittance of a cost.
Six thousand GP gives you at will wings of cover which means even if someone beats you to attack, you can't be the target of the enemy attack.
And of course this is only wizards! Druids shapechange into an armored bear and get huge HP buffs while still able to cast spells while clerics are just as heavily armoured and with one spell can out fight the fighter for a good solid minute or two.
And can cast quite a lot of those spells. And keep himself healed, so the fighter would have died LONG before the cleric runs out of healing.
>person defends S K Reynolds, and boasts he makes good sense and spellcasters are limited by spell slots
>S K Reynolds houseruled his version of 3.5 to give casters infinite spells
I don't think you're following the flow of conversation here, try to keep up.
There are levels of failure.
The first level of failure is having the wrong backup weapon.
The second level of failure running out of spells.
The third level of failure is to use the lower level spell slots for spells that do absolutely nothing when there are spells like Color Spray and Grease that could fill level 1-3 spell slots.
The fourth level of failure is to forgetting to conserve your spells.
The 15th level Wizard from the original post is most likely guilty of all these. Maybe even be unarmed instead of carrying a sling as weapon.
No idea why you bothered replying to that anecdote. Everyone who doesn't understand class imbalance has some story about how the people who play arcane casters at their table are idiots. (Birds of a feather and all that.) What they don't have is a decent reply to how - at comparable levels of skill - the top-tier classes invalidate the likes of fighter. In fact, given that whenever anyone gives a substantial explanation of this (e.g. >>44651318 >>44652732) it doesn't draw a reply, I suspect that nobody in this thread is giving a good faith argument against class imbalance. There's just a few trolls picking away at poorly-stated arguments and relishing the GUARANTEED REPLIES.
>trying to instakill a druid who can give himself tree armor the entire day
Because fighters always go first and attacks alway hit and always do enough damage to kill the target in one swing, and they always get to do full attacks, and are never foiled by having something like a bear be in the way of a druid and the fighter.
Speaking of 3.5, recently left a game because:
>DM refuses to tell us about the campaign but tell us not to optimize
>Roll poorly, only one decent stat, and the group needs a skill monkey
>Go archer scout
>Game is Eberron
>And the lord of blades cult
>Spend like 5 levels literally not dealing damage, srly, 0 damage because damage reduction and immunity to precision damage
>Going to pick Swift hunter feat
>GM "I don't allow it, is broken, it makes scouts and rangers way better"
And then I left
I wasn't even helping with skills because:
Cleric was better than me at scouting and perception
Nobody waited for trap detection and there weren't even traps, and even if they were the wizard had always the right spell
Literally pointless, dunno why I waiter so long
Level: Sorcerer/wizard 1
Components: V, S
Casting Time: 1 immediate action
Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Target: One creature
Duration: 1 round
Saving Throw: None (harmless)
Spell Resistance: Yes
You suffuse your ally with a brief, blue glow. He jerks away from you, as if he can anticipate your next action.
You cast this spell when you and your party roll for initiative. You enhance the subject’s reactions in combat, granting it a +5 bonus on its initiative check for the current encounter. If the subject does not make an initiative check within 1 round, this spell has no effect.
A fighter needs to dump 8 points in dex to get +4 initiative, hurting his other stats.
A wizard can get +5 initiative with one spell, that can be made into an item for 1,000 GP and be used for every single fight forever, and still be more likely to act faster than a fighter.
I fucking hate how some dms treat Eberron.
Fucking hell, no one in the entirety of Khorivare is supposed to be optimized or above like 5th level if they are a mook. Fucking lord of blades and lady vol are like cr 12 at most.
>Game is supposed to be 4 encounters per day on average
>Throws enough encounters to remove 50 spells and still continues for 5 extra hours
Yeah, I guess if you throw a tank and 100 talibans in a basketball match trying to kill the players the game becomes harder than it should be, who knew, right?
While you're at it clerics can cast spells that give then godly powers all day - extra HP, huge bonuses to hit, extra strength and constitution making them literally better than the fighter in every way but feats, and still have all the rest of his spells, too.
DMM: Persist & Righteous Might is a hell of a combo, especially with nightsticks.
It's almost as if the Cleric or Druid is known as ths CoDzilla classes, known for breaking the game easily.
Initiative is only rolled once, at the start of the encounter. The initiative score is kept.
You can cast spells with range: one creature on yourself. That there is flavour text.
It's in the spell compendium.
Ah, right, house rules. But that doesn't really matter because if the wizard goes first he casts fly if the fighter has no ranged weapons or invisibility if he does and buffs and gets to a distance far enough away that he can snipe the poor sod with long range spells.
>spell compendium can burn
Fair enough, I was pulling out all the bullshit stuff. That houserule makes it sound like it would extend combat significantly though.
Read it yourself, numbnuts.
>if the Spell has an XP cost
>Add 5 gp per 1 XP per charge
>unlimited use items count as 100 charges
But nerveskitter uses 0 xp. 0 extra cost.
>a use-activated or continuous item costs spell level1 × caster level × 2,000 gp
Read it yourself
Please give a precise costing of how much it costs to make a use activated spell of caster level 1 and spell level 1, with no xp cost and inform me of the lines that apply.
I state it costs 2,000 and have several autists from giant in the playground forums backing this price, and can quote a dozen other Google entries.
Anyway, this thread is autosaging, most of the really broken stuff I said that buffs wizards should be banned, and I'm GMing pathfinder tomorrow where the investigator and monk is more optimised than the local spellslingers so I can't really argue caster supremacy or quibble over gold pieces no more. Hope some of the more ridiculous arguments have demonstrated pathfinder/3.5 player's brain damage, and have a turquoise banana into entiyu dnoql Bo shhnbp
The first time I played it, my vanilla wizard, for which I only picked core spells by the criteria of "what sounds cool", was able to outdo both the fighter and the paladin together in anything they tried by the time we reached level 9.
The druid's fucking bear was more useful than the fighter, and it was weaker than the druid itself if it decided to use any of his buffs.