In Your Opinion, How Broken Is 3E?

[eggynack]

I think I'm mostly just confused at this point. No idea what anyone's saying anymore.

[Pex]

Sigh.

Here we go again.

To answer the question.

Not broken at all.

The only thing wrong with it is it doesn't satisfy some people's tastes and because it doesn't satisfy their taste they say the game is broken and resent having to make a house rule to fix what they demand be fixed.

Not liking a particular thing doesn't make the game broken. The game does not have to be absolutely perfect in every way in order for it not to be broken.

[JNAProductions]

Sigh.

Here we go again.

To answer the question.

Not broken at all.

The only thing wrong with it is it doesn't satisfy some people's tastes and because it doesn't satisfy their taste they say the game is broken and resent having to make a house rule to fix what they demand be fixed.

Not liking a particular thing doesn't make the game broken. The game does not have to be absolutely perfect in every way in order for it not to be broken.

I don't dislike 3E. I think it's a wild, crazy, and fun system.

But I do think that it's relatively easy to have high-power disparities, especially with newer players, which is an issue. (Though after various responses, it sounds like, barring some bad luck, new players would not experience too much power discrepancies.)

[martixy]

It is not a rigorous mathematical construct so in that sense it can be broken as much as you want it to.

There are ways to make things nonsensical if you dig deep, just based on RAW. Which is why having a rules-overriding DM is part of the rules.

It is highly varied, which is why it can cater to a lot of playstyles and tastes, something that cannot be easily said for any other edition. But as a consequence of accommodating everything to some degree, it doesn't accommodate anything particularly well.

Heck, many of the arguments people levy against it are actually points if favor from my perspective. Such as the possibility of a great power disparity. It means it can accommodate anything from low-fantasy to high-fantasy games and it can add to the enjoyment of the game in the hands of proficient players. You absolutely do not have to have even close to a balanced party, for everyone to be able to have fun.

IMO 3.5 is the upgrade to 5e.

[CharonsHelper]

IMO 3.5 is the upgrade to 5e.

That's why both Pathfinder & 5e are going strong.

Different audiences and/or same audience in a different mood.

[Snowbluff]

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.

Except it's the only system that you can turbocharge, so...

Basically, it's a feature, not a feature.

[Flickerdart]

Except it's the only system that you can turbocharge, so...

Basically, it's a feature, not a feature.

Just like 3.5, a car engine is essentially a barely-controlled series of explosions.

[Florian]

I think I'm mostly just confused at this point. No idea what anyone's saying anymore.

The usual problem you get when talking about something that is very customizable and lends itself to some tuning. The plain vanilla product and the fine-tuned product are so different, it can actually be considered a crime to act like they´re the same thing.

[eggynack]

The usual problem you get when talking about something that is very customizable and lends itself to some tuning. The plain vanilla product and the fine-tuned product are so different, it can actually be considered a crime to act like they´re the same thing.

I meant more because of the weird and tangled web of implicit attribution. Like, evocation and conjuration being on par was meant to mean that evocation and conjuration were considered on par by Wizards, or something, and that was indicated by the use of the word "wizards" in a place where it wouldn't make grammatic sense for it to take on the the meaning "Wizards of the Coast", unless I'm missing some word stresses that make it make sense. I'm cool with people saying that spell schools are equal. I just then disagree with them and provide evidence supporting that position if necessary. My problem is that I can't tell if this situation is that situation.

[Tiri]

I meant more because of the weird and tangled web of implicit attribution. Like, evocation and conjuration being on par was meant to mean that evocation and conjuration were considered on par by Wizards, or something, and that was indicated by the use of the word "wizards" in a place where it wouldn't make grammatic sense for it to take on the the meaning "Wizards of the Coast", unless I'm missing some word stresses that make it make sense. I'm cool with people saying that spell schools are equal. I just then disagree with them and provide evidence supporting that position if necessary. My problem is that I can't tell if this situation is that situation.

Sorry if what I said was confusing. I realise that my statement earlier was slightly gramatically incorrect, but what I was actually trying to say was that the sentence could also be taken to mean that people who think fighters and wizards are equal are on par with the company Wizards, who are known for making unbalanced things. I just happened to read it and actually mistook it for that meaning.

[0Megabyte]

I would point out that 3E isn't very broken at all.

...as long as you ban the Player's Handbook. I'm not joking, either.

[Seppo87]

3.5 is only somewhat balanced if you know what you're doing and you're using the right books.
If you stick with core be prepared to have some classes become useless very soon and the players feel frustrated.

Pathfinder does it much better.
Classes will work mostly as intended and shine in their field.
Use unchained so this will apply to the rogue as well.

[Florian]

Sorry if what I said was confusing. I realise that my statement earlier was slightly gramatically incorrect, but what I was actually trying to say was that the sentence could also be taken to mean that people who think fighters and wizards are equal are on par with the company Wizards, who are known for making unbalanced things. I just happened to read it and actually mistook it for that meaning.

The two words "unbalanced" and "broken" are the actually rankling things here.
The thing is that on a non-system-mastery level, all things are actually equal as the requirements to solve any challenges are actually so low, it doesn´t matter which class is picked or how it is outfitted with items and feats.

If one takes a close look at the official published modules or campaigns, it will become apparent pretty fast that there are practically no requirements or "must-have no-brainers" beyond some basics that nearly any class or build can meet.

In contrast, when we enter the system mastery based arms race of comparing what might could be achieved and set those as standard to engage in meaningful challenges, the game breaks down with the usual well-discussed results.

So we have two data points that we can start any discussion on this from: Either we look at what a CRB could allow, or we look at an Expedition to Castle Ravenloft or Hell´s Rebells to see what is actually happening in the game. The later two, even the most inexperienced new players and GMs will be able to handle.

[0Megabyte]

3.5 is only somewhat balanced if you know what you're doing and you're using the right books.
If you stick with core be prepared to have some classes become useless very soon and the players feel frustrated.

Pathfinder does it much better.
Classes will work mostly as intended and shine in their field.
Use unchained so this will apply to the rogue as well.

That doesn't sound much like the Pathfinder I've read and played.

Are you telling me that wizards can no longer write words that blow people up when they read them, disable entire rooms of opponents with nausea, stop the baddies in their tracks by force of will, turn night into day, raise zombies, fly, breathe water, see through disguises, magically disguise themselves, charm enemies into allies, see the invisible, become invisible, and buff their allies at the same level fighters... get a second attack per round? If they stand perfectly still?

[Seppo87]

In 3.5 if you put a fighter in the same party with a druid by mid levels onward the fighter will not even shine at fighting on top of being outclassed at everything else.
Unless you are using a lot of books and you know what you're doing, that is.

In PF certainly the fighter is still unable to contribute significantly out of combat but in combat it is by default pretty competent and will at least be able to do his job without extreme optimization

[Florian]

In 3.5 if you put a fighter in the same party with a druid by mid levels onward the fighter will not even shine at fighting on top of being outclassed at everything else.
Unless you are using a lot of books and you know what you're doing, that is.

In PF certainly the fighter is still unable to contribute significantly out of combat but in combat it is by default pretty competent and will at least be able to do his job without extreme optimization

If you can´t define what "contribution out of combat" should actually mean, then the whole argument becomes a non-issue.

[BWR]

I have to throw in with the 'it's fine' crowd. Sure, you can if you put your mind to it twist it to a monster, but it works just fine with sensible players, and IME is fairly easy to teach new people.

[OldTrees1]

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.

Sounds like you are asking about the first session/campaign.
We had ~6 players and ended up with both warriors and casters. We only got to level 5 but the party functioned well. I expect we would have seen some massive disparities later, but most of the disparity is locked away by the same ignorance that caused WotC to think healer clerics and evoker wizards were going to be the norm (because that is what happened).

RAW D&D is flawed, but it is not non-functional for groups of all new players.

[CharonsHelper]

Pathfinder does it much better.
Classes will work mostly as intended and shine in their field.
Use unchained so this will apply to the rogue as well.

Use unchained monk too.

Unlike the rogue, the core monk can be made to work with archetype combos, but without any archetypes, the monk is only a hair better than the core only rogue.

If you do that, Pathfinder balance is pretty solid until 10ish.

[Tiri]

In contrast, when we enter the system mastery based arms race of comparing what might could be achieved and set those as standard to engage in meaningful challenges, the game breaks down with the usual well-discussed results.

So we have two data points that we can start any discussion on this from: Either we look at what a CRB could allow, or we look at an Expedition to Castle Ravenloft or Hell´s Rebells to see what is actually happening in the game. The later two, even the most inexperienced new players and GMs will be able to handle.

I see some of the more unbalanced things from Core fairly often in play. The power level in games can range from fighter with Toughness as all feats to optimised wizards. There is no fixed definition of 'what is actually happening in the game'.

[Elder_Basilisk]

If you can´t define what "contribution out of combat" should actually mean, then the whole argument becomes a non-issue.

A lot also depends upon what you want to do outside of combat. In most published or organized play adventures, "out of combat" contributions are largely non-class dependent. You choose what to do, where to go etc. Occasionally you need to make a diplomacy or intimidate check or destroy a bridge or climb a cliff, but that's it. Having a specialist at the diplomacy check/whatever is nice but it's usually doable by a non-specialist with a bit of effort. Occasionally, you find it advantageous to teleport back to Magepoint and confer with Tenser or do some shopping in Niole Dra. But that isn't really a "I didn't cast the teleport, why am I even here?" moment. The teleport could just as easily be cast at PHB prices by a nearby wizard and serves the goals of the whole party. Which party member casts it or if you wind-walk instead is not terribly relevant. A creative player with a lot of spells may be able to create some new options (which may or may not be better for the party), but if you're the kind of players that just follow the plot, the in-group social roles (who has real life leadership and coordination ability) are going to be at least as significant as class abilities for out of combat contribution.

On the other hand if you are playing some sort of semi-independent sandbox game where your spellcasting ability lets you summon or animate an army and build a castle overnight, etc and each character is pursuing their own independent (and possibly conflicting goals), then the limited out of combat options for martial classes is likely to become much more of an issue. (Though in this kind of a game I would expect NPC spellcaster allies, cohorts, and hirelings to even up the options to some extent).

In my experiences, most games are more like published adventures than sandboxes though and the balance issues that Playgrounders go bananas over don't show up in nearly the same way. The balance issues also don't really show up until mid-level (9+ play) and most of the games I've played run at the lower levels 1-12ish. High level play happens but it's a lot more rare.

[Seppo87]

If you can´t define what "contribution out of combat" should actually mean, then the whole argument becomes a non-issue.

Solving problems without swinging sticks

[Flickerdart]

Solving problems without swinging sticks

Good luck winning a single game of baseball with that strategy.

[Troacctid]

In my experiences, most games are more like published adventures than sandboxes though and the balance issues that Playgrounders go bananas over don't show up in nearly the same way. The balance issues also don't really show up until mid-level (9+ play) and most of the games I've played run at the lower levels 1-12ish. High level play happens but it's a lot more rare.

This has been my experience as well.

Solving problems without swinging sticks

My warmage is great at solving problems without swinging sticks. She just throws fireballs instead!

[xyz]

3.5e isnt broken you only hear that from scrubs who can't into making good optimized characters and get rekt at the table. Take yo dice and tears and g t f o --->

[Snowbluff]

3.5e isnt broken you only hear that from scrubs who can't into making good optimized characters and get rekt at the table. Take yo dice and tears and g t f o --->

the "po" is practical optimization.
git gud, scrubz! do you even po?

[xyz]

the "po" is practical optimization.
git gud, scrubz! do you even po?

true nuf. if u aint takin 2 flaws then askin ur dm to let u take another 10 for "character building" reasons you are B A D and are holding the group back.

[Snowbluff]

true nuf. if u aint takin 2 flaws then askin ur dm to let u take another 10 for "character building" reasons you are B A D and are holding the group back.

2 flaws
shaky. you don't need a bow
vulnerable. ac is suboptimal.
all of the feats you need
what flaws you got, bitch?

[xyz]

2 flaws
shaky. you don't need a bow
vulnerable. ac is suboptimal.
all of the feats you need
what flaws you got, bitch?

vulnerable, shaky, then good new homebrew ones (cuz core srd is broken rite so homebrew is clearly superior)

1) unpracticed spellcaster: make spellcraft checks at -2
2) arachnaphobia: make saves vs fear at -2 when dealing with spiders
3) old: character is 10 years older
4) mundane: character's spells have -1 to DC
5) nearsighted: character cannot see further than 1000 feet
6) telephatically mute: character cannot use or be affected by psionic force
7) scared straight: character's alignment shifts one towards lawful
8) alcoholic: character must drink daily or take a -2 on will saves vs compulsion
9) elfblind: character does not acknowledge elves.
10) illiterate: character does not start with literacy, like a barbarian.

[Bobby Baratheon]

Don't forget Dwarfism! Half your normal height, no mechanical effects.