In Your Opinion, How Broken Is 3E?

[JNAProductions]

And 3.5, and Pathfinder, etc.

By this, I mean if you sat down a couple of random people new to D&D, with a basic understanding of the rules, would the party function well? Would you get a group of people who could take on level appropriate encounters, or would you have some massive disparities? Would people be underpowered? Overpowered? So on and so forth.

[Urpriest]

3e/3.5/PF aren't so broken that you can't have a reasonable game with them, in particular at low levels. They also aren't (usually) the sort of broken that keeps you from running the rules without online help (unlike some games, which have even worse editing). I'd actually say you might have an easier time doing that with 3e/3.5/PF than with 5e, since 5e's monsters tend to be a bit more unbalanced.

[khadgar567]

depend on people like dm who knows what he doing and people who have basic understandingcuz if dm puts summoner and gestalt on same game its gg

[Flickerdart]

Revised 3rd edition is like an old car - it's charming, comfortable, and if you drive it too fast, the wheels will fall off. Unless you intentionally push it past its limits, things are fine enough.

[Red Fel]

3e/3.5/PF aren't so broken that you can't have a reasonable game with them, in particular at low levels. They also aren't (usually) the sort of broken that keeps you from running the rules without online help (unlike some games, which have even worse editing). I'd actually say you might have an easier time doing that with 3e/3.5/PF than with 5e, since 5e's monsters tend to be a bit more unbalanced.

Revised 3rd edition is like an old car - it's charming, comfortable, and if you drive it too fast, the wheels will fall off. Unless you intentionally push it past its limits, things are fine enough.

Basically these. If you don't overthink things, if you don't try to optimize or "outsmart" the game, if you just keep things simple and use a sort of gentleman's agreement with respect to all manner of shenanigans, the system works alright. Some bumpy patches, but easily addressed by saying, "Okay, let's not try that again, hm?"

Once you get into high levels, high optimization, rigorous RAW review, and things like DCS or drowning, there is a simple metaphor for how broken 3E is. Pick up an egg and drop it off of the roof. Climb down, pick up what's left, and drop it again. Repeat until the egg is whole.

That's how broken it can be. Not necessarily how broken it is, though.

[JNAProductions]

I'm asking, though, about new players. (Which, admittedly, I suppose no one here really qualifies as. :P)

I understand that 3E is perfectly capable of running well when everyone knows what they're doing, but what about people who DON'T know? People who think Evocation is the strongest school and Fighters are on par with Wizards?

[khadgar567]

new player advise
depends on dm

[Flickerdart]

I understand that 3E is perfectly capable of running well when everyone knows what they're doing, but what about people who DON'T know? People who think Evocation is the strongest school and Fighters are on par with Wizards?

These are the people the game was balanced for. Just keep an eye out for the druid discovering Natural Spell, and you'll do great.

[JNAProductions]

These are the people the game was balanced for. Just keep an eye out for the druid discovering Natural Spell, and you'll do great.

Seems legit. Thanks for your answers, everybody!

[Zylas]

I'm asking, though, about new players. (Which, admittedly, I suppose no one here really qualifies as. :P)

I understand that 3E is perfectly capable of running well when everyone knows what they're doing, but what about people who DON'T know? People who think Evocation is the strongest school and Fighters are on par with Wizards?

It works just fine. Arguably, it works even better. My RL DM (who, admittedly, is really good) has two groups. One is us, the "veterans", and the other is a group of total newbies. He tells us the most hilarious stories about them. For example, at one point they tried to save an anthopomorphic ape PC who was in the negatives but stable by hunting down a monkey in the nearby jungle and attempting a heart transplant with a rusty dagger. Needless to say the PC died, but you don't get stuff like that in a game with experienced players and from what I understand those players are enjoying their play a lot. The only downside is that they level a bit slower because people keep on dying.

[Red Fel]

These are the people the game was balanced for. Just keep an eye out for the druid discovering Natural Spell, and you'll do great.

It works just fine. Arguably, it works even better.

These. Again, most of the problems emerge when you think too hard about how all the sausage is made. If you just sit down, shut up, and eat your hot dog, you probably won't die of food poisoning. When you first give a hot dog to a kid, there's a shrug, followed by behavior commonly seen in half-starved wolves. The new guy eats the hot dog, doesn't ask too many questions, and does fine. It's when you have players who've been eating the stuff for years, who one day start to wonder, "Just how many insect parts can they legally have in a sausage?" That's when the problems start to become manifest.

Bunch of newbies? Teach them the mechanics, advise them not to be jerks, and things should go relatively fine.

[Aegis013]

I'm asking, though, about new players. (Which, admittedly, I suppose no one here really qualifies as. :P)

I understand that 3E is perfectly capable of running well when everyone knows what they're doing, but what about people who DON'T know? People who think Evocation is the strongest school and Fighters are on par with Wizards?

Depends on the players. I tend to be able to pick up new systems, find synergistic combos and cause problems from session one.

Most players probably won't see much brokenness until mid-high levels where they may start noticing caster dominance.

[CharonsHelper]

While it has its own issues Pathfinder did a good job of tweaking the earlier levels. There are a few core classes which are rather UP (rogue/monk) but the unchained version mostly fixed them.

So - I'd say that with Unchained summoner/monk/rogue, balance looks pretty good in Pathfinder up through level 10ish. (Around then spells start to break stuff - and not just Shatter.)

Is it perfect? No.

But for a game with as much character customization as it has (which inherently makes balance harder) it's not too bad.

[Cosi]

These are the people the game was balanced for. Just keep an eye out for the druid discovering Natural Spell, and you'll do great.

Also, the power of casters in general can fluctuate massively between levels. If the party Wizard thinks that color spray is the best 1st level spell, he will be pretty awesome for a couple of levels. But if he gets to fifth level and decides to start slinging fireballs, he will become substantially less good.

[CharonsHelper]

Also, the power of casters in general can fluctuate massively between levels. If the party Wizard thinks that color spray is the best 1st level spell, he will be pretty awesome for a couple of levels. But if he gets to fifth level and decides to start slinging fireballs, he will become substantially less good.

That's not really fluctuating with levels. That's fluctuating with player choice. (Usually player skill/knowledge, but sometimes newbies can luck into awesome choices.)

[The Glyphstone]

That's not really fluctuating with levels. That's fluctuating with player choice. (Usually player skill/knowledge, but sometimes newbies can luck into awesome choices.)

I think he's saying the two correlate - as level goes up, the variety of potential player choice goes up, and they could as easily fixate on a good option as a bad one (or more likely a bad one, since the 'bad' spells outnumber the good and tend to be flashier and attention-getting.)

[Eldariel]

If you're looking to run a game for spellcasters with worldshattering power, the system is sublime. For sword'n'sorcery, it's workable but leaves a lot to be desired especially higher up - the Christmas Tree effect in particular is highly troublesome. However, limitations can help; E6 (only using a small part of the level range) or Tier 1-2/3-4/5-6 games (using only a small portion of the available classes) both can make it a lot easier to make the system work across the scope.

Still, as someone whose first game in 3.X was a mixed party game where yours truly was playing a Fighter and the party contained a Cleric and a Wizard, I've experienced even completely inept caster players doing a lot of cool stuff on level 13 while I was thinking about how to get enough magic items (while already way past my WBL, mind) to be able to deal with all my limitations and perhaps even to be able to do their cool stuff. Yeah, their spell selection was very inefficient but they got to switch their spell list daily which eventually began to land them more and more at the more powerful options. Then I've also played a 13+ game where I ran a Dervish and had an Ultimate Magus for a companion: that time we both knew what we were doing and the difference was obvious. Since then I've played a lot of casters and spend more time thinking about how to keep the game fun for everybody than how to make myself useful.

[Necroticplague]

New to dnd doesn't necessarily mean unable to optimize, though. A lot of theeoryOP shenanigans are well beyond the reach of anyone new, but many of the basic optimization assumption/tenants (with which the game is imbalanced related to)s equally apply to pretty much every game. I can actually remember when I was new, and almost instantly found a potent combination that years later I would learn is pretty standard for med-op (fighter and barbarian charged+power attacked while the wizard and sorceror spammed AoE battlefield control spells, like Acid Fog, Cinder cloud, Entangle, and Black Tentacles).

[Elder_Basilisk]

I think 3.0-pathfinder is fairly well balanced for experienced hands and newbies as long as you are not trying to break the system.

Most of the useless and non-functional characters I saw in my years DMing the system were the result of idiots attempting to break the system. They couldn't be satisfied with a wizard or a rogue or a cleric or a barbarian, so they made out of the box choices until they finally succeeded at creating something that sucked. That's not something (IME) that newbies are likely to do. Newbies are more likely to embrace the archetypes and the obvious choices. They won't be optimized and they'll make some strange choices but they are not likely to suck. Sucking takes effort and system knowledge. On the other hand, skilled players who attempt to break the system will succeed, so again it comes down to "don't try to break it and it will work." The same is true for DMs. Advanced half-fiend phasms with clvl way too high blasphemies can easily break the game. But no one is making you create one. Don't break the game and it won't break.

That said, like any system that has a lot of accumulated extra material, it works best with an extensive ban list or relatively narrow limits on source material and a limited ban list. For newbies, limits on source material is probably best. "Core rulebooks" or "Core rulebooks plus Ultimate Equipment" is a lot less intimidating for a newbie than "Core+Completes but minus divine metamagic, persistent spell, arcane strike houseruled to 1/round, etc etc etc etc etc...."

[Cosi]

That's not really fluctuating with levels. That's fluctuating with player choice. (Usually player skill/knowledge, but sometimes newbies can luck into awesome choices.)

It's not a direct result of level, but it's fluctuating over levels. Sometimes someone choosing abilities (essentially) randomly will pick an awesome ability and be awesome for as long as that ability is useful. Sometimes he will pick and ability that is terrible and be terrible until he picks a new ability. It's true that the thing driving the fluctuations is player choice, but the fluctuations happen as the character levels through various ability choices.

[Troacctid]

If the party Wizard thinks that color spray is the best 1st level spell, he will be pretty awesome for a couple of levels. But if he gets to fifth level and decides to start slinging fireballs, he will become substantially less good.

I don't think that's accurate. Besides the fact that a 1st level wizard with color spray is generally less powerful than a 1st level fighter with a greatsword, fireball is a legitimately efficient damage spell and will almost always outdamage the weapon damage of a low-op fighter, ranger, or paladin.

[Gnaeus]

With new players, watch for Druid. Even without natural spell, there is a pretty good chance that the Druid will be as good as the badly built fighter, with a pet who is also as good as the badly built fighter.

While core is very poorly balanced in general, it can be played in a balanced way (healbot clerics and blaster wizards) note that some non-core options which are very balanced in isolation are badly balanced compared with bits of core. For example, the Tome of Battle classes are pretty firmly in the mid range of 3.5. Well built, generally relevant and useful at most or all levels. But they are so easy to build and play that they will blow a poorly built fighter or monk out of the water. This makes many groups think that systems like Tome of Battle or Psionics are poorly balanced, when they aren't, compared with most of 3.5.

[AvatarVecna]

3.0, 3.5, and PF have some broken options, but most of them are things you have to build your character for specifically; they're not the kind of broken option that the game directs people to, but rather a combination of things that you're unlikely to bring about by accident. You don't have to worry about these things: the odds of your newb players surprising you with a Hulking Hurler/War Hulk with a massive strength packing more d6s than your average Shadowrun group, or a Wizard/Shadowcraft Mage abusing Earth Spell and Signature Spell to spontaneously cast realer-than-reality illusions, or even something so mundane as a Swift Hunter with Improved Manyshot and a Splitting Longbow, is pretty low.

No, what you have to worry about is the things that can break the game by accident. The big one that comes to mind, at least for me, is action economy abuse (various forms of minionmancy, Leadership, and/or time magic): whether it's the necromancer and his squad of super-zombies, the druid and her army of summoned bears, a second character, or a spellcaster making good use of things like Contingency or Celerity, messing around with the action economy is the kind of things that can massively unbalance the game without the players even trying to break the game ("I did it because it was cool, I didn't know it would wreck encounter balance"). Other things that can be problematic by accident are spells widely known to be broken or abusable. In particular, Polymorph comes to mind: the power and versatility that spell offers make it a char-op staple for a reason, and even somebody without any particular char-op experience can make good use of the spell.

Mind you, the presence of these things doesn't mean the game is automatically broken: one of my first 3.5 games featured multiple characters with the Leadership feat, a mystic theurge focused on necromancy, a summoner druid, and a sorcerer who spammed Color Spray, Polymorph, and Haste; it was all done without realizing how game-breaking it could be...at least, for us players. The DM understood the game-breaking potential our group had, and worked to make sure the game continued being fun for the Monk and Paladin that were working with the Sorcerer, Druid, and Ascetic Rogue. The presence of these potentially broken elements is easily dealt with by a DM who has some decent char-op chops and knows how to counter or mitigate things without ruining the game for anybody by doing so.

[Waazraath]

I'm asking, though, about new players. (Which, admittedly, I suppose no one here really qualifies as. :P)

I understand that 3E is perfectly capable of running well when everyone knows what they're doing, but what about people who DON'T know? People who think Evocation is the strongest school and Fighters are on par with Wizards?

I never had problems with it, to be honest.

Played (and DM'd) 3.0 and 3.5 with several groups of new players, up to +/- level 10 - 14 highest. In general, the people were smart enough to see quickly that a character like monk or paladin should only be played when rolling really high stats, but who weren't interested in finding "the most powerful" options - they just wanted to play a game. At the higher levels it got a bit trickyer, but never problematic - as long as more experienced players are willing to help the ones who don't want to invest too much time. Ask what somebody wants to achieve / has his/her character do, give some possible options, let the other person choose, etc. As a DM, I once gave all players a custom artifact; all powerfull, and meant to fill in to compensate for weak points in the class, that kind of stuff can also be us to help to keep the balance. Sometimes, folks on forums start yelling about 'dm cuddling' and that kind of stuff, but if you have a bunch of relaxed people who just want to play a game and have fun, it's not felt that way in my experience. But it depends of course, mostly on the people you play with. Much more important than which edition is played.

[Flickerdart]

Druids and necromancers and polymorph are not as big an issue as might seem - they all require encyclopedic knowledge of the Monster Manual, and brand new players might not even know such a book exists. Give the druid an eagle; give the necromancer humans; give the wizard a bear form. The game will be fine.

[Psyren]

And 3.5, and Pathfinder, etc.

By this, I mean if you sat down a couple of random people new to D&D, with a basic understanding of the rules, would the party function well? Would you get a group of people who could take on level appropriate encounters, or would you have some massive disparities? Would people be underpowered? Overpowered? So on and so forth.

This is an understandable hypothetical, but is ultimately meaningless because it's pretty much never going to happen. The way tabletop gaming works is that a small group of people (or even a single person) rolls out a new game to their friends, usually IRL but sometimes nowadays online. Pretty much no D&D/PF group is going to consist entirely of brand new tabletop players with a virgin DM; at best you might get a group where some or all of the players have played some flavor of D&D in the past but are now all coming into a new edition together - and even in that case, the results will depend heavily on their optimization savvy going in.

In short, somebody in the group will have some form of exposure to TTRPGs (if not D&D itself) and that mutes the impact of the mechanics in a vacuum; how well this person can teach the new players and what kind of campaign they run at the outset is going to have a much larger impact on enjoyment of the game than how balanced the mechanics are. And in the end, this is in fact why both 3.x and PF continue to thrive despite strong TO imbalances persisting.

[Cosi]

I don't think polymorph is really that big of a deal. The real abuses are mostly pretty obscure, and require pretty significant rules knowledge. For the most part, spending a standard action to turn into a Wolf or a Bear or whatever is not a really big deal.

[eggynack]

Druids and necromancers and polymorph are not as big an issue as might seem - they all require encyclopedic knowledge of the Monster Manual, and brand new players might not even know such a book exists. Give the druid an eagle; give the necromancer humans; give the wizard a bear form. The game will be fine.

Kinda, but also kinda not. It's very possible for someone to play in a perfectly balanced way, but it only takes a decent pile of good finds to make such a character really strong, and the way casters operate enables them to swap to said really strong form with great ease.

[Telonius]

Druid and Monk are the two big pitfalls for mid-levels. Both are okay enough at the lowest levels. Yeah, there are win buttons for some of the spellcasters, but they're kind of hard to stumble on by accident. There are lose buttons, too, but those are equally easy for anybody to step in. It's only after the first few levels that the differences start to become really apparent.

For lowest-level pitfalls, the worst are Bard and Sorcerer. Keep a very close eye on the spell selection. A Cleric or a Druid who screws themselves over can just wait a day and pick new spells. Wizards too, to a lesser extent. But any class with a Spells Known list should have at least some supervision, or they're liable to do something silly like taking all random/weird spells and nothing that actually helps the party.

[The Glyphstone]

I remember my group, back in middle/high school, figured out some of polymorph's more ridiculous implications by example - they fought a hydra, nearly got TPKed, then later the sorcerer asked about the possibility of turning the rogue into a hydra for extra sneak attacks.

Sure, it's no Chronotyryn/Zodar abuse, but it was a huge power multiplier.