In Your Opinion, How Broken Is 3E?

[CharonsHelper]

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.

Polymorph & Summon Monster spells aren't an issue because they're the most powerful spells in the game (especially in PF which nerfed the worst of polymorph) - they're issues because they invalidate the existence of the group's martial.

If the wizard is casting Save or Death / Save or Suck spells of craziness, he still benefits from a martial bodyguard. Summon Monster is him making his own bodyguards, and polymorph means that he doesn't need one at all.

[evangaline]

In my personal experiency I find that you have to go out of your way and use material from multiple sourcebooks to break the non-magi classes in dnd 3.5. Without a little research the magi will of course have more, and better, options later in the campain. In my eyes it's mostly up to the players: If they want to break the game they can.

It's also important how your party looks at the concept of power: Magi do have more options then mundanes, but mundanes have a tendancy to do more hp dmng until level 11. This is when the obvious save or lose spells come into play. Very few campains reach level 11.

If you are looking for a dnd-like game to play with new people, play 5th edition. It's easier, and it has improved on some aspects of 3.5 (and became less good on other aspects, but that is one hell of an interesting debate for another time)

Edit: polymorph etc, are not powerful when playing with new players. Figuring out which forms are mechanically strong takes research.

[Kelb_Panthera]

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.

You'd think this would be the case and most of the time it is. However, it's not unheard of for a group of complete newbs to spontaneously enter the hobby either. Two or three times in the last month or so we've had newb DM's in exactly that scenario come to the forum to ask for help.

[Barstro]

Point by point.

1) if you sat down a couple of random people new to D&D, with a basic understanding of the rules

2) would the party function well?

3)Would you get a group of people who could take on level appropriate encounters

4) would you have some massive disparities?

5)Would people be underpowered? Overpowered? So on and so forth.

1) If they are completely new to the game, it would be horribly slow. Instead, I'm going to assume that the DM has some idea and is quickly able to explain rules (but not strategy).

2) Well? Sure. But not efficiently. I think that four random people will build four individual characters and have no real idea of interaction between them. I think that the "roleplaying" part would be minimal.

3) Same as above. It would take a bit of time before they figured out how rogues can get the extra d6s.

4) Magic users would be worthless, since it takes a bit of time to understand which spells actually work best.

5) I think that everyone would be underpowered at first. Mundanes would be the first ones to "figure it out" and rise to their true, albeit low, potential. After a few sessions, there would be a greater understanding of how magic works.

I am of the opinion that 3e and its descendants are not broken. Adding in all sorts of splat-books and random extras that the authors never figured out could be utilized a certain way or have consequences with other spells is what breaks the game.

As an aside; if you "sat down a couple random people new to D&D", they would get up and find something else to do. We are a unique bunch.

[Gnaeus]

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.

I'm pretty sure my PHB gives a list of options for animal companions. You don't need an encyclopedic knowledge of anything to realize that a wolf, bear or tiger is likely to be a better fighter than an eagle. It follows my minimum optimization standard, which is to say that my 10 year old daughter can pick up the PHB and without trying make Druid choices that far outclass a low op fighter. Certainly my group realized Druid>>> Fighter long before anyone read a guide or checked forums. It might have had something to do with my DMs realization that every fight had to have 2 monsters. One for my Druid/bear and bear pet, and one for the rest of the party combined.

[Flickerdart]

I'm pretty sure my PHB gives a list of options for animal companions. You don't need an encyclopedic knowledge of anything to realize that a wolf, bear or tiger is likely to be a better fighter than an eagle.

Which is great if your goal is to have a fighter. But a low-op player might say "but we already have a fighter, his name is Sir Robin and he has a chainmail and sword. I'mma get myself this cool bird because it can fly."

[Gnaeus]

Which is great if your goal is to have a fighter. But a low-op player might say "but we already have a fighter, his name is Sir Robin and he has a chainmail and sword. I'mma get myself this cool bird because it can fly."

He might. But once he realized that a flying pet that can't talk and is really dumb isn't very helpful, he can just switch it out. And in any event, if the obvious choice (like taking a combat animal, or giving your barbarian a 2handed weapon) is also the best (or in the case of the Druid, least balanced) you are likely to end up with balance issues by accident, let alone if the player in question is remotely trying to build a strong character. Sure, the Druid MIGHT take nothing but divination spells. But A he probably won't do that and B if he does he is able to correct his mistake vastly more easily than the fighter can fix his bad feat choices.

[Elder_Basilisk]

He might. But once he realized that a flying pet that can't talk and is really dumb isn't very helpful, he can just switch it out. And in any event, if the obvious choice (like taking a combat animal, or giving your barbarian a 2handed weapon) is also the best (or in the case of the Druid, least balanced) you are likely to end up with balance issues by accident, let alone if the player in question is remotely trying to build a strong character. Sure, the Druid MIGHT take nothing but divination spells. But A he probably won't do that and B if he does he is able to correct his mistake vastly more easily than the fighter can fix his bad feat choices.

1. This little "Druids rock; fighters suck" discussion is specific to 3.5. The balance of pathfinder druids (and 3.0 druids for that matter) is noticeably different. For that matter, not being able to fix your fighter is not as true in pathfinder as it was in 3.5 since fighters get to retrain their fighter feats like sorcerers can retrain spells. The fighter who picked cleave in pathfinder without realizing that it's terrible past level 5 (and it is in Pathfinder--Pathfinder Cleave is one of the very noticeable changes) can probably trade it out at level 6 and take Furious Focus or something useful instead. It's not quite as RAW easy as picking up a new animal companion but it is less subject to in-game situations (many DMs would not have a polar bear randomly wandering a desert just because the druid wants to switch from an eagle companion to a bear).
2. The discussion vastly over-estimates the effectiveness of a low-op druid and under-estimates the effectiveness of a low-op fighter. Newbies and people without system mastery generally don't make anti-op fighters. A low op fighter who has, for example, a longsword and heavy shield and weapon specialization, etc plus power attack is generally able to hold his own and is noticeably better than a no-effort druid animal companion. The druid's bear may get better if barkskinned, greater magic fanged, animal growthed, etc but A. that is not a no-effort, no system mastery druid anymore, and B. It still has a number of significant and noticeable weaknesses (material and alignment DR, fire elementals, flying opponents, among other things shut down the animal companion much more emphatically than the fighter who can have special material and aligned weapons, isn't using a natural weapon, and can pull out a bow and use it with some effectiveness).

[Malimar]

The first druid I ever played with had little system mastery. She primarily used a bow and hardly ever used spells, and she didn't have an animal companion. (Well, she did, but it was a Medium Viper, and the DM confused animal companions with familiars and didn't understand size categories so he said "it's medium for a viper", and so it was too little to be effective in combat. Point is none of the players at the table had the system mastery to correct the DM.) The most effective thing she did was she started turning into a boar once she got wildshape.

Second druid I played with literally never used her wild shape (too confusing for her) and prepared almost exclusively blasting spells, but at least she got to use her animal companion. She still wound up being more effective than most (but not all) of the party.

Basically what I'm saying is that Druid is too complicated for real newbies to completely understand, and is therefore balanced at low-op levels of play with the more straightforward mundane classes.

This holds true for most aspects of 3.5/PF. As observed upthread, fighters and fireballin' wizards and other low-op things are what the game was balanced around. I usually play at a medium-op level, and the game works pretty well there, too, though it works better if the DM at least re-feats monsters instead of using them straight out of the box. High-op is where joy goes to die less balanced but can still make for a fun game for those who enjoy that sort of thing.

[Malroth]

Point the fighters and monks towards warblades and swordsages, allow rebuilds when somebody feels they're too weak and keep an eye on anyone who takes item creation or metamagic cost reducers.

[Gnaeus]

1. This little "Druids rock; fighters suck" discussion is specific to 3.5. The balance of pathfinder druids (and 3.0 druids for that matter) is noticeably different. For that matter, not being able to fix your fighter is not as true in pathfinder as it was in 3.5 since fighters get to retrain their fighter feats like sorcerers can retrain spells. The fighter who picked cleave in pathfinder without realizing that it's terrible past level 5 (and it is in Pathfinder--Pathfinder Cleave is one of the very noticeable changes) can probably trade it out at level 6 and take Furious Focus or something useful instead. It's not quite as RAW easy as picking up a new animal companion but it is less subject to in-game situations (many DMs would not have a polar bear randomly wandering a desert just because the druid wants to switch from an eagle companion to a bear).

Yes and no. Yes, PF makes it easier to retrain virtually everything. And yes, PF Druid is far harder to optimize than 3.5 Druid, so Druid is no longer your problem child in PF.

OTOH, In 3.5, I don't expect to see a newb fighter walking around next to a newb warblade, totemist or other solid, high optimization floor martial, because by the time Wizards knew how to build a martial they were sticking them in obscure splatbooks. In PF, where they are all sitting on the same webpage, it is way more possible that you will get a monk and a slayer, or heaven forbid a warlord or daevic, in the same party.

2. The discussion vastly over-estimates the effectiveness of a low-op druid and under-estimates the effectiveness of a low-op fighter. Newbies and people without system mastery generally don't make anti-op fighters. A low op fighter who has, for example, a longsword and heavy shield and weapon specialization, etc plus power attack is generally able to hold his own and is noticeably better than a no-effort druid animal companion. The druid's bear may get better if barkskinned, greater magic fanged, animal growthed, etc but A. that is not a no-effort, no system mastery druid anymore, and B. It still has a number of significant and noticeable weaknesses (material and alignment DR, fire elementals, flying opponents, among other things shut down the animal companion much more emphatically than the fighter who can have special material and aligned weapons, isn't using a natural weapon, and can pull out a bow and use it with some effectiveness).

Not so much. Part of the fighter problem is that since it lacks a clear defining role, you could wind up with almost anything. Yes, the S&B fighter with power attack is probably equal to the druid's wolf. But the TWF fighter probably isn't. The fighter that took combat expertise and improved disarm certainly isn't. And when the druid thinks Bear, its all over.

Special weapons? You are way backward. The newb fighter and the druid both learn they need cold iron or whatever on the adventure. They aren't likely to get that stuff on their own. At that point, the druid can look through his spell book and find an I win button for the next day, and the fighter has to go back to town. Flying opponents? I can't believe that anyone would ever say that fighter beats druid vs flying opponents. Your most likely circumstance is that the pet is useless, the fighter is plinking away for pathetic damage, and the druid is left to do all the heavy lifting in the fight.

Where the real problems come up are battlefield control and action economy. Fighter can do BFC, but it takes optimization chops. Mostly, it NEEDS a way to change size. The low op druid combo, which far outweighs most fighter options, is that the bear or tiger charges, then grapples. If they miss, druid charges, then grapples. While one of them holds down the enemy, the other one makes full attacks against a grappled target. It's not fleshraker+venomfire. But it's super easy, it comes attached with most of the sexy druid pets and forms. And the low op fighter has nothing comparable. Worse, the fighter lacks pounce, which comes standard on many druid pets and shapes, so in the 6-20 range, even with druid unbuffed, the fighter's 1 power attack with the longsword has to compare with 2-6 from Druid and friend (+ probably 2 grapples or trips). And practically, while the druid probably isn't rocking Bite of the WereX, he is a full caster, and is more likely to pock good spells by accident than good feats by accident, if for no other reason than his spell list doesn't evolve once per level, it evolves once per day as he learns which spell suck and tries others. Even picking at random by how cool it sounds, that will eventually get a decent spell list.

[Florian]

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.

Your entire question is fundamentally flawed because you can´t provide an answer what the entire activity is about.

Do we play a game (Rules first)? Do we engage in collaborative storytelling (Content first)? As the name would imply, a bit of both?

A think is "broken" when it can´t be put to a productive use. The thing with the d20 rules is that they are easy to use by themselves but will become problematic when you switch POV based on what you actually need right now, this situation.

[eggynack]

There are two clear forces working in opposition with regards to the druid and others. There is a pile of options that would be trivial for such a character to select at any given moment which would be overpowered or even game breaking, depending on level and other factors. But, at the same time, there is another pile of options that would also be trivial for such a character to select at any given moment which would be of normal or even below par power, again depending on those factors. And a relatively new or unskilled player will have little ability to tell the difference. How big those piles are, and how likely a player is to fall into one or the other to whatever extent, or how problematic it will be if he lands in the OP pile, well, that's up to debate, and it's also up to the individual player. Some players will naturally tend towards weak or strong things, or be more or less curious. And anecdotal cases of players landing in the weak pile aren't really that important. It's expected, in fact, that a good number will be just fine. But there is game breaking available, and anyone can access it.

As for the claim about animal companions, those spells are fine but they're not necessary for companion power. The best part of an animal companion is how free it is, how effective it is on a base level. A riding dog at first, maybe with barding, can compete quite well against a low or even average optimization melee fighter. The same holds true for high and middle end options at each level range, though in a manner that reduces with time, as the druid's other features come into their own. Are there things a companion is worse at? Sure, but it's still a potent force on the battlefield, and one with high replacability. We're not going for perfect fighter here. A solid damage source is sufficient for many purposes, especially when you can back it up with spells.

[RoboEmperor]

Brokeness is the charm of 3E.

You can literally play whatever you want and it'll be fine, as in, anyone can play their favorite weird quirky playstyle and still not be worthless or be overpowered.

In 3E, because of "brokeness" you get crazy characters, like a character pulling out chickens and throwing them as bombs. There's a reason why a lot of people try to emulate super heroes and anime characters through 3.5.

Balanced games, you're basically stuck with normal characters. A guy who beats stuff, a guy who shoots arrows, a guy who heals, and a guy who throws fireballs. Can't do anything else than these in "balanced games". Honestly video games are better than pnp for these type of games.

Balance is created by players. If someone wants a certain playstyle that is too powerful for the group, he finds other ways to weaken his character so that he can still use the playstyle he wants and he won't hog the spotlight.

Unlike most other games of this genre, looking up "meta-builds" and optimized stuff is useless because you can win in less than a minute with that. This promotes player creativity rather than a copy paste of an online build, because like I said, the sheer amount of customization in this game lets a player do anything he wants and still be ok.

It also depends on the people. If a DM wants a lord of the ring campaign he is gonna go ballistic at any quirky or unusual character and is probably better off not using d&d 3.5.

[Gnaeus]

Brokeness is the charm of 3E.

You can literally play whatever you want and it'll be fine, as in, anyone can play their favorite weird quirky playstyle and still not be worthless or be overpowered.

In 3E, because of "brokeness" you get crazy characters, like a character pulling out chickens and throwing them as bombs. There's a reason why a lot of people try to emulate super heroes and anime characters through 3.5.

Balanced games, you're basically stuck with normal characters. A guy who beats stuff, a guy who shoots arrows, a guy who heals, and a guy who throws fireballs. Can't do anything else than these in "balanced games". Honestly video games are better than pnp for these type of games.

Balance is created by players. If someone wants a certain playstyle that is too powerful for the group, he finds other ways to weaken his character so that he can still use the playstyle he wants and he won't hog the spotlight.

It also depends on the people. If a DM wants a lord of the ring campaign he is gonna go ballistic at any quirky or unusual character and is probably better off not using d&d 3.5.

I mostly agree. 3.5s problem is less balance than predictability. It doesn't hurt my feelings that the Druid's pet can be better than the fighter, nearly as much as the fact that you would expect that a class called fighter sounds like it would be among the best at fighting, and it isn't good for character awesomeness/image when Sir Gawain the Bold is not as good as Merlin's pet.

[magicalmagicman]

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.

There are a ton of virgin DMs out there who only skim the DMG, introduce an ungodly amount of DMPC party members, and railroad the players into a singular linear storyline because they wrote a fantasy fanfic and wanted to recreate it in d&d.

If the players are experienced instead of the DM, they will either bail, or takeover the DMing because the virgin DM is making too many mistakes or doesn't know how anything works, at which point everyone bails because the games are ridiculously boring rule tutoring sessions.

Honestly, new DMs should at least play neverwinter nights 1 or 2 for one playthrough before trying PnP, but that probably won't be enough to teach them that mage armor doesn't stack with regular armor.

[CharonsHelper]

There are a ton of virgin DMs out there who only skim the DMG, introduce an ungodly amount of DMPC party members, and railroad the players into a singular linear storyline because they wrote a fantasy fanfic and wanted to recreate it in d&d.

If the players are experienced instead of the DM, they will either bail, or takeover the DMing because the virgin DM is making too many mistakes or doesn't know how anything works, at which point everyone bails because the games are ridiculously boring rule tutoring sessions.

Honestly, new DMs should at least play neverwinter nights 1 or 2 for one playthrough before trying PnP, but that probably won't be enough to teach them that mage armor doesn't stack with regular armor.

It depends what other games they've played before. I'd been playing 40k for years before I ever played D&D, so the mechanics of a tabletop game weren't a mystery.

[Psyren]

There are a ton of virgin DMs out there who only skim the DMG, introduce an ungodly amount of DMPC party members, and railroad the players into a singular linear storyline because they wrote a fantasy fanfic and wanted to recreate it in d&d.

If the players are experienced instead of the DM, they will either bail, or takeover the DMing because the virgin DM is making too many mistakes or doesn't know how anything works, at which point everyone bails because the games are ridiculously boring rule tutoring sessions.

Honestly, new DMs should at least play neverwinter nights 1 or 2 for one playthrough before trying PnP, but that probably won't be enough to teach them that mage armor doesn't stack with regular armor.

I went the NWN route too so I can vouch for this method, but there are ways into PnP that don't require a videogame. The Pathfinder Beginner Box for instance is a great resource, as is 5e, for growing the hobby. But in general, I still find that at least one person in a group has at least been exposed to tabletop prior to picking either of these up, no matter how slimmed down they are.

[Tiri]

People who think Evocation is the strongest school and Fighters are on par with Wizards?

You know, if you changed that question mark to a full stop that sentence could have a very different (but true) meaning.

[eggynack]

You know, if you changed that question mark to a full stop that sentence could have a very different (but true) meaning.

How's that work? Are you saying that evocation is as good as conjuration, and wizards as good as fighters? Cause they're not. Also, the underlying structure would be really thrown by doing your basic punctuation swap.

[Tiri]

How's that work? Are you saying that evocation is as good as conjuration, and wizards as good as fighters? Cause they're not. Also, the underlying structure would be really thrown by doing your basic punctuation swap.

Not Wizards as in the class, Wizards as in a certain company whose full name starts with that word.

[JNAProductions]

Not Wizards as in the class, Wizards as in a certain company whose full name starts with that word.

I get it now! And it made me laugh.

[Flickerdart]

WotC doesn't think evocation wizards are the strongest wizards. They may have started out thinking that, but we can see that their understanding of the game evolved as the edition went on.

However, evocation wizards are by far the most iconic wizards. To an observer who doesn't understand business decisions, WotC favoring evokers looks like WotC thinking evokers are the strongest.

[Tiri]

WotC doesn't think evocation wizards are the strongest wizards. They may have started out thinking that, but we can see that their understanding of the game evolved as the edition went on.

However, evocation wizards are by far the most iconic wizards. To an observer who doesn't understand business decisions, WotC favoring evokers looks like WotC thinking evokers are the strongest.

Well, it was just a joke, but I would say that while my statement may be less true than it was fifteen years ago, it is still accurate to a large extent. Remember, 'on par' doesn't mean 'exactly the same as'.

[eggynack]

Remember, 'on par' doesn't mean 'exactly the same as'.

What? Yes, it does. Look here, with, "Equal to someone or something," or here, for, "A state of equality." You don't need to have the same things, but you need to be as good as the thing you're on par with. Not perfectly, but pretty close.

[Tiri]

What? Yes, it does. Look here, with, "Equal to someone or something," or here, for, "A state of equality." You don't need to have the same things, but you need to be as good as the thing you're on par with. Not perfectly, but pretty close.

Which is what I said. It doesn't have to be exactly the same. Very similar, but not exactly the same.

[Flickerdart]

Remember, 'on par' doesn't mean 'exactly the same as'.

I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. What are you referring to?

[eggynack]

Which is what I said. It doesn't have to be exactly the same. Very similar, but not exactly the same.

But they're not very similar. Many other schools of magic have far superior and more versatile spells. Not to the extent that it's typically presented as, cause evocation's got some utility, but it's not on the same level as a conjuration or transmutation, or even an abjuration or illusion. It's probably better than enchantment, and arguably better than necromancy, with divination kinda existing outside the school system for the sort of purpose you'd care about this stuff for.

[Knaight]

There are a number of ways to inadvertently break the game entirely by accident, but it won't break nearly as far as it will when people are deliberately breaking it.

[Tiri]

I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. What are you referring to?

I was attempting to say that WotC, even with the progress they have made, are still, as a whole quite close to from those who believe Evocation is superior and that fighters are as powerful as wizards. Which would make them on par with them.

But they're not very similar. Many other schools of magic have far superior and more versatile spells. Not to the extent that it's typically presented as, cause evocation's got some utility, but it's not on the same level as a conjuration or transmutation, or even an abjuration or illusion. It's probably better than enchantment, and arguably better than necromancy, with divination kinda existing outside the school system for the sort of purpose you'd care about this stuff for.

I honestly do not understand what part of my post you are replying to.