D&D 3.5 - Biggest Flaws

[Mordenkainen]

Like many other roleplaying games, the third edition of D&D, throughout its various states of revision, has had its flaws. From the numerous loopholes and exploits that first popped up around the new edition to the "power creep" that became present in later sourcebooks, it was certainly not a perfect system.

But what were the biggest flaws? What were the weaknesses in the rules that so easily broke games?

The most obvious to me is the lack of utility in many of the melee classes. The fact that all of the fighter's abilities were solely for in-combat, while the wizard, cleric, and druid could use both combat spells to terrible effect (I assume you've seen the builds? Or the tiers?) and non-combat spells to solve otherwise impossible problems (e.g., "Get across the chasm," "Get into the prison unseen," "Find the magic staff of the Black Necromancer,") always irked me. This devastating flaw in the core rules effectively broke the entire system for me (or at least until ToB leveled the combat playing field, though that didn't fix my main issue with the system.)

Those are my thoughts, but I enjoy discussion. What are your two cents?

[Gigas Breaker]

It needs more Tome of Battle. MORE.

[Darth Stabber]

The tiers are pain, but can actually be channeled to good effect, if you get the whole party close in terms of tiers. Right now I am GMing for a "caster party" of a psion, dreadnecromancer, druid, sorcerer, and assassin, and they work pretty well, but the fights tend to drag on a bit, they will achieve "victory as a forgone conclusion" quickly, but it usually take several turns to actually "seal the deal", especially against things immune to sneak attack. That's the problem with 3 battlefield controllers, a debuffer, and a sneak attacker. Most damage is done by minions (undead and a megaraptor animal companion), but damage is not what wins the fights any way.

[Waker]

Well, my biggest complaint about 3.5 is the vast power differences between the classes. Specifically between mundanes and casters, but the imbalances between magic schools is something of a bother too. I do find the various arguments with people accepting impossible things "because magic", but then blanch when a mundane tries to do something impressive to be grimace-inducing as well.
Then you have the glitchy mechanics behind certain abilities. Grappling is overly complicated, Turn Undead is annoying or just outright weird stuff like drown-healing. Or how about how annoying and intrusive the majority of the feat trees are? Or feat taxes, like how Dodge is a requirement for everything despite being an absolutely irredeemable feat.
Lastly you've got the trap options. Things that look cool, but are so underpowered or otherwise ineffective. Two-Weapon Fighting and Archery are definitely up there, as well as In-Combat Healing or Direct Damage spells.

[NeoPhoenix0]

In my opinion the biggest general flaw is either the large number of spells per day or vastly overpowered spells. I think this could be aliviated without taking away powerful spells by having dome sort of mana system instead of vancien magic. Casting powerful spells would come at the cost of a huge portion of you mana while cantrips would cost like one point. But that is speculation and would require a whole new system that many people wouldn't like.

Also the large number of prestige classes and feats combined with poor editing and playtesting led to a lot of overpowerd prestige classes and feats.

Edit: another solution to the spells problem I like is the shadowcaster. Although it could probably use a few more mysteries per day at lower levels. Also it would require lower the poer of a lot of spells.

[Werephilosopher]

It needs more Tome of Battle. MORE.

This. As everyone always says, "regular" warriors just can't stand up to casters. ToB really helps in catching up, though.

One idea I have, and might implement in some of the games I run, is getting rid of high-level spells- 9th levels at least. In the time it takes a 20th-level Fighter to hit an enemy eight times with his sword, a 20th-level Wizard can kill twenty enemies and then trap the soul of one of them in a gem. I realize few people play base classes straight to level 20, but this is just an example of the imbalance.

Another flaw with 3rd Ed is the lack of incentive to progress to level 20 in one class. Getting a free feat every couple of levels doesn't make anyone look and say "Oooh, what a cool class!" There needs to be better rewards for sticking to one class, and better capstones.

[Saintheart]

Another flaw with 3rd Ed is the lack of incentive to progress to level 20 in one class. Getting a free feat every couple of levels doesn't make anyone look and say "Oooh, what a cool class!" There needs to be better rewards for sticking to one class, and better capstones.

If you're a caster, there is a solid reward for sticking to one class. It's called Caster Levels. Losing caster levels as a tradeoff for PrCs is one of the few balance elements in D&D that I think actually works to some extent.

[Zanos]

In my opinion the biggest general flaw is either the large number of spells per day or vastly overpowered spells. I think this could be aliviated without taking away powerful spells by having dome sort of mana system instead of vancien magic. Casting powerful spells would come at the cost of a huge portion of you mana while cantrips would cost like one point. But that is speculation and would require a whole new system that many people wouldn't like.

Also the large number of prestige classes and feats combined with poor editing and playtesting led to a lot of overpowerd prestige classes and feats.

Edit: another solution to the spells problem I like is the shadowcaster. Although it could probably use a few more mysteries per day at lower levels. Also it would require lower the poer of a lot of spells.

There is a Spell Point variant you could give a try. I have heard it has major issues, such as the necessary points for a cast only scaling for damage, so it makes battlefield control/buffing an even better option than it already was, but it is there if you want to tweak it.

[Werephilosopher]

If you're a caster, there is a solid reward for sticking to one class. It's called Caster Levels. Losing caster levels as a tradeoff for PrCs is one of the few balance elements in D&D that I think actually works to some extent.

In some cases yes. But there are PRCs that improve casting at every level while still being powerful in and of themselves- Initiate of the Sevenfold Veil comes to mind, for instance. There are also front-loaded PRCs that improve casting at first level, such as Mindbender. While I agree with you that trading caster levels for multiclassing helps balance things out, it's all too easy to multiclass without losing any casting progression.

[Psyren]

Just how lazy they were with errata and fixes. So much could be cleared up and made much more playable if they were better about this.

[Saintheart]

In some cases yes. But there are PRCs that improve casting at every level while still being powerful in and of themselves- Initiate of the Sevenfold Veil comes to mind, for instance. There are also front-loaded PRCs that improve casting at first level, such as Mindbender. While I agree with you that trading caster levels for multiclassing helps balance things out, it's all too easy to multiclass without losing any casting progression.

Hell, I agree with you entirely. Runecaster is one of those PrCs too: full casting levels as cleric while breaking the action economy more frequently and in even more creative ways than a DMM Persist cleric can dream of.

[Humble Master]

The big points seem to have been covered. Martial classes being horrendously underpowered, the ability for casters to screw the entire world over and of course there being only one Tome of Battle.

[BowStreetRunner]

One thing I always thought was handled absolutely terribly was the support for customer prestige classes. Page 176 of the DMG first introduced the concept of prestige classes with a three paragraph description that ended by telling the DM that "the best prestige classes for your campaign are the ones you tailor make yourself."

After that bold statement, the game designers proceeded to include new prestige classes with many of the supplements, but never offered any sort of a concrete system to help the DM figure out how to make his own. I always liked Paizo's system for creating new races, and think that Wizards should have offered something along these lines to help DMs create custom prestige classes.

[GreenETC]

Just how lazy they were with errata and fixes. So much could be cleared up and made much more playable if they were better about this.

Hands down this. Nothing is more annoying than something like ToB's errata, or the wording on some feats/abilities which lead to awful problems, not just for balance, but for sheer understand-ability.

[Curmudgeon]

1. Too much magic.
2. Game authors who couldn't be bothered to read the core rules.
3. Many classes (the non-casters) run empty in both power and flexibility at higher levels. Even though all the base classes are spec'd for 20 levels, most games are designed to end well before level 20; consequently, the designers gave minimal attention to the higher-level abilities. When casters are getting more powerful spells, why isn't everyone else getting more powerful abilities?
4. Most feats are garbage.
5. Over-reliance on single monsters rather than groups of enemies.

[Felhammer]

Off the top of my head...

1. Magic was too powerful
2. Magic was too versatile
3. Mundane Classes and Magic-lite classes were too weak
4. Most feats were not worth the ink used to write them
5. Many prestige classes were too specific in flavor
6. Most prestige classes were worthless
7. Rules bloat
8. Over-reliance on magic items as a catch-all fix for inherent game imbalances
9. Magic Item costs
10. Cherry picking

[NeoPhoenix0]

There is a Spell Point variant you could give a try. I have heard it has major issues, such as the necessary points for a cast only scaling for damage, so it makes battlefield control/buffing an even better option than it already was, but it is there if you want to tweak it.

The spell point system breaks down very quickly. It might work better if the higher level spells were double or even triple the cost. In the end it makes wizards even more powerful and makes sorcerers much weaker. Makes me wonder if that guy who hated sorcerers designed that variant. If I redesigned the system there would only be one main arcane caster instead of two and it wouldn't be recognizable. Not gonna do it though.

[TrollCapAmerica]

Well its still the best version of the game and the best fantasy RPG on the market but its always good to analyze how it could be improved

First the designers forgot D&D is a game of epic adventure and heroic challenges.The real reasons martial classes lag behind is that its difficult to contribute in situations where you dont have something to trip or charge in a straight line for X1000 damage.The tier lists give great examples of how Joe McFighter cant do anything when he doesnt have something to hit due to linear one-dimensional abilities and lack of skills

There are alot of things put in the game that also just dont matter and will never be used outside of novelty value.I lost count of the number of useless feats produced in splatbooks and even in CORE theres only a handful of really useful ones

Finally the big reason nerfing caster wont improve balance is because monsters wont change at all.A reason In old D&D fighters could often win battles of attrition based on higher HP THAC0 and usually having higher damage/attack# compared to everyone else while being a threat to almost any monster.By 3rd ed monsters HP had tripled they tended to have much more useful abilities [tell me you ever bothered with Graz'zits affect normal fires ability] and the game didnt bog down into melee attrition thanks to greater rules for mobility reach etc.Take down casters and a Type IV demon still has reverse gravity confusion teleport and chaos hammer at will.What they would need is to improve the versatility of the martial classes ala tome of battle without making it a mess like 4E

[Irk]

The whole idea surrounding 3.5 was that it was not only compatible with 3.0, but wizards also allowed third parties to publish new sourcebooks (such as the book of erotic fantasy). By creating this vast community that could essentially make homebrew into official rules, WoTC opened up 3.5 to massive deficiencies regarding balance.

[TrollCapAmerica]

The whole idea surrounding 3.5 was that it was not only compatible with 3.0, but wizards also allowed third parties to publish new sourcebooks (such as the book of erotic fantasy). By creating this vast community that could essentially make homebrew into official rules, WoTC opened up 3.5 to massive deficiencies regarding balance.

and yet Gate still exists in the PHB

[Squirrel_Dude]

Overly strong options within a class, or few reasons to stay in a class for long periods of time.

E.G.
Overly strong options within a class:
Wizards: Conjuration School for everything
Cleric: DMM
Barbarian/Fighter: Ubercharger

E.G.
Few reasons to stay in a class for long periods of time
Sorcerer: 0 class features
Monk: Mostly because the class is only worth dipping into


I would also say that the game's biggest flaws almost completely derive from it's greatest strengths. Freedom of choice meant that any concept could be created, and publishers allowed content that was subpar, but flavorful for a concept get out. It also meant that the there were tons of unintended synergies within the system that only reveal themselves after years of play.

[J-H]

(swordsaged, at least partially)
Not listed: Too much HP, not enough DPS. This hurt the ability of anyone focused on damage-dealing to contribute to high-level combat... ie, it harmed fighters, monks, rogues, and blaster wizards.

In 2E, you gained HD/level (+bonus CON hp, with melee classes getting more of a CON bonus) through level 9 or level 10. After that, you got 3hp/level if you were a fighter, 2 for support classes (cleric/rogue), and 1 if you were a wizard.

An 18 CON fighter who maxed his HP rolls, at level 20, would have something like 170hp. In 3rd Edition, he'd have 280hp before gear.

An 18 CON wizard who maxed his HP rolls, at level 20, would have something like 70 HP. In 3rd Edition, he'd have 160HP

Gear-based HP boosts would be flat amounts, not scaling with level. Weapon damage and spell damage did not (in general) increase proportionately with the HP bloat.

That level 20 fighter could hit for, say, 25 damage per hit average (1d12 weapon + 8 strength + 5 magic + 1d6 flaming or whatever). 2 hits and a miss knock off about 3/4 of the wizard's HP in 2nd Edition. In 3rd edition, he's only done about 1/3 of the wizard's HP in damage. Similarly, a 10d6 fireball (average damage = 35) in 2nd Edition would knock half the wizard's HP out - a serious threat if he fails his saving throw. In 3rd edition, the wizard laughs at 35HP damage and responds with a "save or suck/die" spell.

The other big one was the skill point system screwing over anyone who didn't have high INT or a high-skill class.

[Felhammer]

Well its still the best version of the game and the best fantasy RPG on the market but its always good to analyze how it could be improved

Around these parts, 3.5 is probably the most popular. In the real world, most people moved on to other pastures (be it 4E, PF or something else entirely).

There are alot of things put in the game that also just dont matter and will never be used outside of novelty value.I lost count of the number of useless feats produced in splatbooks and even in CORE theres only a handful of really useful ones

90% of the core rule book feats were pretty bad and WotC had the gall to re-print a fair majority of them into 2 editions of 3.x, all three Star Wars games AND d20 Modern! Yuck!

Finally the big reason nerfing caster wont improve balance is because monsters wont change at all.A reason In old D&D fighters could often win battles of attrition based on higher HP THAC0 and usually having higher damage/attack# compared to everyone else while being a threat to almost any monster.By 3rd ed monsters HP had tripled they tended to have much more useful abilities [tell me you ever bothered with Graz'zits affect normal fires ability] and the game didnt bog down into melee attrition thanks to greater rules for mobility reach etc.Take down casters and a Type IV demon still has reverse gravity confusion teleport and chaos hammer at will.What they would need is to improve the versatility of the martial classes ala tome of battle without making it a mess like 4E

If you are nerfing Casters, then why can't you also nerf Monsters?

To fix 3.5, you need to gut useless feats/spells/class abilities/magic items from the game while simultaneously nerfing casters and monsters while buffing mundane and magic-lite classes while at the same time maintaining the air of differences both mechanically and flavor-fully between all of the classes while at the same time completely re-jiggering Magic Items and PrC's.

[LordBlades]

Probably 99% of 3.5 flaws can be traced down to one thing: the designers' playtesting mentality.

they never approached it along the lines of 'here's a wizard; here's the spell list; what's the most effective strategy?' but rather 'we want wizards to blast; loads up whole spell list with fireball, empowered fireball and maximized fireball; blaster wizard works as intended'

[TrollCapAmerica]

Probably 99% of 3.5 flaws can be traced down to one thing: the designers' playtesting mentality.

they never approached it along the lines of 'here's a wizard; here's the spell list; what's the most effective strategy?' but rather 'we want wizards to blast; loads up whole spell list with fireball, empowered fireball and maximized fireball; blaster wizard works as intended'

The worst part is even that doesnt work as intended.A blaster wizard is so subpar its not even funny.Unless all you do is take on hordes of orcs in 20 foot circles

It makes me wonder if Lorraine Williams was still in charge and banned playtesting

[navar100]

Here we go again.

[LordBlades]

The worst part is even that doesnt work as intended.A blaster wizard is so subpar its not even funny.Unless all you do is take on hordes of orcs in 20 foot circles

It makes me wonder if Lorraine Williams was still in charge and banned playtesting

It works as intended as in it functions properly in a party with a fighter, rogue and healbot cleric. That's the power level they were aiming for

[The Viscount]

One for me, aside from the very valid ones that haven't been mentioned, is the early fear of at-will or frequent uses of abilities. As we've seen, well-designed classes that can do things at will, such as the initiators, binder, and to a lesser degree warlock, can all function rather well. However, the reluctance to give these sorts of things in earlier-made classes means that in many parties this is wasted, and adventuring days only last until the most limited character runs out.

While many mention ToB as a good fix, I found that it could have stood to be less conservative. While initators are useful in more situations, they are still rather heavily combat focused, and most maneuvers are still focused on full-on combat, though stances have a bit of a wider distribution. For example, at 9nth level there are strikes to do things like deal 100 damage or a Save or Die. As for those who fear the power of infinite Save or Die effects, binder gets one at level 7, 5 with improved binding.

[TrollCapAmerica]

One for me, aside from the very valid ones that haven't been mentioned, is the early fear of at-will or frequent uses of abilities. As we've seen, well-designed classes that can do things at will, such as the initiators, binder, and to a lesser degree warlock, can all function rather well. However, the reluctance to give these sorts of things in earlier-made classes means that in many parties this is wasted, and adventuring days only last until the most limited character runs out.

While many mention ToB as a good fix, I found that it could have stood to be less conservative. While initators are useful in more situations, they are still rather heavily combat focused, and most maneuvers are still focused on full-on combat, though stances have a bit of a wider distribution. For example, at 9nth level there are strikes to do things like deal 100 damage or a Save or Die. As for those who fear the power of infinite Save or Die effects, binder gets one at level 7, 5 with improved binding.

Good stuff and a couple snippits I wanted to bring up

1] I think at will abilities were taboo because of memories of old editions.I cant count the number of books I bought for 2nd ed that seemed scared to death to let anything work more than 1-3 times a day.I still remember the Mighty Servant of Luek-o being able to fire beams doing 2d6 damage a couple times a day as if that was better than spamming darts

2] Yeah TOB is neat but stuck being very combat heavy which isnt really the martial classes biggest problem

3] Funny part about those 100 damage abilities is that by 17th level+ that 100 damage isnt even that big a deal and the save isnt that hard for most things to make

[ZamielVanWeber]

Just how lazy they were with errata and fixes. So much could be cleared up and made much more playable if they were better about this.

This. Right here. Sometimes their errata needed errata. It was bad.