3.5 is inherently imbalanced, but is that really an issue?

[EldritchWeaver]

Taking planning and cooperation to run smoothly isn't an issue, it's one of the primary features of the game. This is a rules-heavy multiplayer tabletop rpg that requires a serious time commitment from oneself and several other friends who have to sit down and play the game together. The whole game is about planning and cooperation, between the players as a party and between the dm and all of them. That's what the game is.

There is still the difference between a game which adds to the burden ("I can't play my summoner, because the fighter always wants buffs!") or a game, where showing up with a new character (assuming you don't overlap with an existing one) will not cause a problem with the existing characters by virtue of your presence.

[Quertus]

Yes, 3e is imbalanced.

Mostly, that's a feature, not a bug. It allows tables to play in many different balance ranges (or to ignore balance altogether). Balance to the table.

The only time this is an issue is when people are acting in ignorance, or the GM is trying to "solve" balance through house rules.

[zlefin]

Taking planning and cooperation to run smoothly isn't an issue, it's one of the primary features of the game. This is a rules-heavy multiplayer tabletop rpg that requires a serious time commitment from oneself and several other friends who have to sit down and play the game together. The whole game is about planning and cooperation, between the players as a party and between the dm and all of them. That's what the game is.

that doesn't work as a counterargument; because there's no need to increase the burden of work required. you can have planning and cooperation just fine without having to do additional work to address balance issues. there's no inherent incremental benefit to what you describe; especially seeing as it sometimes can and does cause problems because people don't go through that extra work. so you're simply wrong.

[MeimuHakurei]

Yes, 3e is imbalanced.

Mostly, that's a feature, not a bug. It allows tables to play in many different balance ranges (or to ignore balance altogether). Balance to the table.

The only time this is an issue is when people are acting in ignorance, or the GM is trying to "solve" balance through house rules.

It does, however, make it more difficult to establish a proper expectation for the campaign and it's not quite easy to meet the exact balance point the DM desires, either by failing to properly evaluate a character option (which exist in the PHB too) or by not giving the players a good point of reference.

Solving imbalance through house rules can work at some tables (including any scope of bans) while many unfortunately fail to accomplish what they're meant to do, sometimes even making the problem worse.

I do have to agree with the other posters on the presentation problem however, because 3.5 does proclaim (or at least imply) that the classes should be equal to one another if the same level. It doesn't help that WotC is grotesquely incompetent at playing their own game, still not having figured out how to play a half-decent Wizard even after half a century. And even in 5e they did not even remotely consider how much of a problem minionmancy is.

[Crichton]

If that is what the game is, why does it go out of its way to make that harder to do? Both in presentation (like I said, outright lying to the players about the equality of options, or as a different thing, totally misleading DMs with encounter difficulty ratings) and in practice.

You seem to be thinking the game designers are intentionally going out of their way to mislead, misinform and make things harder. You use words like 'outright lying' as if the game designers whole goal was to pull one over on you. That's a pretty outrageous claim, frankly. Yeah, they could have done a cleaner job of editing, and been more careful with their rules text, but honestly, across the hundreds of thousands of words of rules, and dozens upon dozens of classes, races, and other character options, asking them to also take into account how us rules optimizers would find ways years later to break the interactions between the hundreds of different rules is asking a bit much. You gotta realize that those of us who spend out time in this forum debating the tiniest details of rules interactions and finding new and interesting ways to squeeze every last tiny bit of power out of a character build are a tiny fraction of the player base, the vast majority of which crack open the books, sit down at a table with their friend, and play the game, having fun the whole while, instead of spending their time typing angry words online about a decade old game system that has the audacity to not perfectly balance every single interaction in its nearly a hundred rulebooks, not including setting specific ones. Sure, some classes are stinkers, and some sell themselves as more than they are, but most folks don't care. They just want to play a fun character with their friends.

I've been told on this very forum, in just the last week or so, that the highest and most perfect form of teamwork is to make yourself absolutely self-sufficient. No talking, no planning, no cooperation, and yet that is playing the game optimally. Worse, I generally agree.

If THAT'S your idea of a fun way to play a TTRPG with your friends, I guess go at it? I heartily disagree. What's the point of playing with friends if you're not going to work with them to succeed at your party's goals? Trying not to be a burden on your fellow party members sure, but flipping them the bird and telling them you don't need them, and worse, basically not cooperating at all? No thanks!

If planning and coordination are the game, it would seem that the agreed-upon winning move is not to play!

That's your prerogative.

There is still the difference between a game which adds to the burden ("I can't play my summoner, because the fighter always wants buffs!")

That's not the game adding to the burden. That's the players adding to the burden by not planning and cooperating. The game system has nothing to do with that.

that doesn't work as a counterargument; because there's no need to increase the burden of work required. you can have planning and cooperation just fine without having to do additional work to address balance issues. there's no inherent incremental benefit to what you describe; especially seeing as it sometimes can and does cause problems because people don't go through that extra work.

So you're saying you want the game designers to make every single class, race, and other character option to all be completely balanced so no character is ever more or less powerful than any other? Not only is that a completely unrealistic expectation, it wouldn't be any fun to play. Yes, some editions have wider swings in power levels than others. This edition probably has the widest of all. That's why I like it, frankly. But all editions of D&D have as a core founding principle that the dm and the players work together to make the game work. If you're having imbalance issues, that's not a game problem, it's a table problem.

so you're simply wrong.

Wow. Just wow.

Yes, 3e is imbalanced.

Mostly, that's a feature, not a bug. It allows tables to play in many different balance ranges (or to ignore balance altogether). Balance to the table.

The only time this is an issue is when people are acting in ignorance, or the GM is trying to "solve" balance through house rules.

I couldn't agree more, my good sir!

[MeimuHakurei]

You seem to be thinking the game designers are intentionally going out of their way to mislead, misinform and make things harder. You use words like 'outright lying' as if the game designers whole goal was to pull one over on you. That's a pretty outrageous claim, frankly. Yeah, they could have done a cleaner job of editing, and been more careful with their rules text, but honestly, across the hundreds of thousands of words of rules, and dozens upon dozens of classes, races, and other character options, asking them to also take into account how us rules optimizers would find ways years later to break the interactions between the hundreds of different rules is asking a bit much. You gotta realize that those of us who spend out time in this forum debating the tiniest details of rules interactions and finding new and interesting ways to squeeze every last tiny bit of power out of a character build are a tiny fraction of the player base, the vast majority of which crack open the books, sit down at a table with their friend, and play the game, having fun the whole while, instead of spending their time typing angry words online about a decade old game system that has the audacity to not perfectly balance every single interaction in its nearly a hundred rulebooks, not including setting specific ones. Sure, some classes are stinkers, and some sell themselves as more than they are, but most folks don't care. They just want to play a fun character with their friends.

Hanlon's Razor does indeed apply here.

[Endarire]

Crake: Maybe. Maybe your group has radically different pivot/balance points, like mixing totally new people with veterans of a decade+.

Ultimately, a notable goal of any game is for it to be enjoyed by all those involved. With potentially radically different expectations, these need reconciliation. Maybe that means having an epiphany about Warmages and blasting being good in practice due to having lots of casting stamina and a varied spell list, even if it's mostly many flavors of HP damage. Maybe it's realizing that higher tier characters generally require more effort to plan and play optimally in the moment than blaster casters. And so on.

[Quertus]

I couldn't agree more, my good sir!

It does, however, make it more difficult to establish a proper expectation for the campaign and it's not quite easy to meet the exact balance point the DM desires, either by failing to properly evaluate a character option (which exist in the PHB too)

Mistakes happen. You talk it out, and choose differently.

or by not giving the players a good point of reference.

Two words: sample characters. When that fails, see above.

Solving imbalance through house rules can work at some tables (including any scope of bans) while many unfortunately fail to accomplish what they're meant to do, sometimes even making the problem worse.

So, in the party where the Monk consistently outshines the Wizard, what does one ban? When I'm playing WH40K (where I'm horrible), how do you make the table balanced, when player > build > class, and I'll probably underperform even if you handed me Tzeentch or the god emperor himself?

Creating balance through a ban list can only* work if the most important element in the hierarchy - the players - are in sync. And, as my experience has taught me, if the "more than most important element", the character**, is not performing at expected levels, then the whole balance is off.

All I've ever seen ban lists*** do is demonstrate the GM's biases and weaknesses, while preventing perfectly balanced concepts.

* Or, I suppose, if the same players always play the same characters, and always play them the same way.
** Ie, the personality of the character. Quertus underperforms because of his personality, which I abbreviate the most relevant bits to "tactically inept"
*** Of more than a handful of items. Banning spiders, because someone had a phobia, for example, works perfectly fine.

I do have to agree with the other posters on the presentation problem however, because 3.5 does proclaim (or at least imply) that the classes should be equal to one another if the same level.

Yeah, that's my bad for not including that caveat. Although I think I did have an "ignorance" clause.

It doesn't help that WotC is grotesquely incompetent at playing their own game, still not having figured out how to play a half-decent Wizard even after half a century.

Quertus, my signature academia mage, for whom this account is named, clearly trained there.

And even in 5e they did not even remotely consider how much of a problem minionmancy is.

But... They clearly wanted "armies win" as a design goal, so "armies win" shouldn't have surprised them.

Seriously, if the 5e designers wanted to ensure that mooks remained a threat, and then were surprised when mooks were a threat, they should probably take a long, hard look at their lives.

[MeimuHakurei]

So, in the party where the Monk consistently outshines the Wizard, what does one ban? When I'm playing WH40K (where I'm horrible), how do you make the table balanced, when player > build > class, and I'll probably underperform even if you handed me Tzeentch or the god emperor himself?

Creating balance through a ban list can only* work if the most important element in the hierarchy - the players - are in sync. And, as my experience has taught me, if the "more than most important element", the character**, is not performing at expected levels, then the whole balance is off.

All I've ever seen ban lists*** do is demonstrate the GM's biases and weaknesses, while preventing perfectly balanced concepts.

* Or, I suppose, if the same players always play the same characters, and always play them the same way.
** Ie, the personality of the character. Quertus underperforms because of his personality, which I abbreviate the most relevant bits to "tactically inept"
*** Of more than a handful of items. Banning spiders, because someone had a phobia, for example, works perfectly fine.

Yes I did say that house rules can change table balance for better and for worse. And my only stance on bans in that post is that they definitely count as a form of house ruling. The main reason for bans other than your listed idea is to rule out concepts or elements that don't fit the setting/campaign (like evil characters in a campaign that deals with the players becoming exalted for instance) or ones that provide a lot of gameplay problems in adjudication and pacing (which is the main reason Leadership gets the axe).

[zlefin]

@drysdan don't bother to talk if you're just going to strawman my position instead of dealing with the actual point I actually made. all you did was strawman my position. sloppy arguing helps noone.

[ezekielraiden]

You seem to be thinking the game designers are intentionally going out of their way to mislead, misinform and make things harder. You use words like 'outright lying' as if the game designers whole goal was to pull one over on you. That's a pretty outrageous claim, frankly.

Given Monte Cook's "Ivory Tower Game Design" essay would seem to disagree with that claim being "outrageous." It was perfectly intentional--they just achieved a much, much worse version of it than they really intended. I believe the pithy phrase for this sort of thing is gone horribly right.

Yeah, they could have done a cleaner job of editing, and been more careful with their rules text, but honestly, across the hundreds of thousands of words of rules, and dozens upon dozens of classes, races, and other character options, asking them to also take into account how us rules optimizers would find ways years later to break the interactions between the hundreds of different rules is asking a bit much.

And if that was what I'm asking for, you would be right. I'm not. I'm asking for Monk and Fighter to be reasonably balanced with Druid and Cleric. I'm asking for two things which both cost exactly the same resource--Toughness and Natural Spell, or Toughness and Craft Wondrous Item if you want something not class-specific, each "one feat"--to provide roughly the same value. Not exactly the same, not even super similar, just a rough correspondence. Both of these are emphatically not the case, by intent. All of these options come from the very first book. Not dozens upon dozens of classes. Just eleven--not even one dozen. Not thousands of feats. Just...I believe 109, in the 3.5e PHB1 anyway.

You gotta realize that those of us who spend out time in this forum debating the tiniest details of rules interactions and finding new and interesting ways to squeeze every last tiny bit of power out of a character build are a tiny fraction of the player base, the vast majority of which crack open the books, sit down at a table with their friend, and play the game, having fun the whole while, instead of spending their time typing angry words online about a decade old game system that has the audacity to not perfectly balance every single interaction in its nearly a hundred rulebooks, not including setting specific ones. Sure, some classes are stinkers, and some sell themselves as more than they are, but most folks don't care. They just want to play a fun character with their friends.

I don't actually do that much of that, I'd like to note. Partially because 3.x/PF isn't my system of choice usually, and partially because I build characters by a different metric (power is always tertiary, with "neat mechanical idea, can I make it work?" and "neat story idea, can I make it work?" duelling for first vs. second). That aside, though, it is these people you mention who are my primary concern. The ones who do not use the incredible festooning variety of options. The ones who just want to sit down and have a good time.

Because the system does intentionally tell them things--like that a Monk and a Fighter are just as good as a Cleric and a Druid--that are simply false. And because, even when those things don't inherently lead to issues? People can extremely easily accidentally end up feeling cheated or left out, or feeling like they've done their friends wrong, purely because each of them just did what sounded cool. If Sally plays S'ah'lee, the 6th level Elf Monk who takes Toughness, Endurance, and Athletic because S'ah'lee makes it her personal mission to prove that elves aren't the wimps everyone says they are, and Bobby plays William Bear-Friend who takes Spell Focus (Conjuration), Augment Summoning, and Natural Spell as his feats because William just loves bears so gosh darn much and wants to have as many and as strong of bears as he can get....well, it's possible they won't realize one of the two contributes a hell of a lot more than the other. Or an acquaintance of mine, who heard about this 'Incantatrix' thing, and thought it was neat to have a pro-female spellcasting class, and ended up single-handedly winning nearly every fight because of it, despite literally zero intent to seek great power AND not being a significant user of internet forums at the time.

It is, in fact, the people who "just want to have fun" who most NEED the books to be very clear about what they're offering. Perhaps I am being overly harsh, on the designers, but frankly, I don't really care. They have created a game that needlessly punishes people who make "poor" choices simply because they sound cool/good/fun, or randomly superpowers them, or anything in-between. People who play without system knowledge of 3.x are signing up for a crapshoot, and being told it's a fair game. That's wrong.

If THAT'S your idea of a fun way to play a TTRPG with your friends, I guess go at it? I heartily disagree. What's the point of playing with friends if you're not going to work with them to succeed at your party's goals? Trying not to be a burden on your fellow party members sure, but flipping them the bird and telling them you don't need them, and worse, basically not cooperating at all? No thanks!

Pardon, I was not clear. That is not--at all!--how I like to play TTRPGs. But it is the most effective way to play 3.5e. That is the thing I agreed with, in sadness. 3.5e is not a game that rewards, as I have phrased it, "positive" teamwork, where each player tries to key off what the other players can do. Instead, at best, it rewards "negative" teamwork--covering your friends' weaknesses. No interaction is required, at all; as noted, the best way to achieve success within the 3.5e rules is to make your own character as individually capable as it can be. Inter-character synergy is rarely worthwhile. In-combat healing, for instance, is almost categorically worse than just ending the fight or getting it meaningfully closer to ending.

That's your prerogative.

See above: it's not my prerogative, but it is the consensus in what discussions of teamwork I've seen regarding 3.x/PF rules. This makes me very, very sad.

That's not the game adding to the burden. That's the players adding to the burden by not planning and cooperating. The game system has nothing to do with that.

Both components would seem to be at fault, no? The players are bickering, to be sure, but the fact that the fighter sucks without caster help is a pretty serious contributor as well.

So you're saying you want the game designers to make every single class, race, and other character option to all be completely balanced so no character is ever more or less powerful than any other? Not only is that a completely unrealistic expectation, it wouldn't be any fun to play.

I can't speak for the person you were quoting, but no, that's not what I want, and yes, you're totally right that it's unrealistic. But of course, any time anyone asks for balance, it is always instantaneously interpreted as both:
(a) absolute diamond-perfect uniformity, which I agree would be both impossible and sucky if it were possible, and
(b) a call to completely goddamn destroy any trace of creativity or difference.

I don't want those things. I do want a more balanced game. I think that 3.x/PF has sacrificed far, far too much in order to allow a too-great gulf of power. I don't think that creating more balance requires destroying the game, paving over all the options until they're perfectly flat and smooth as glass. I think that overreactions like this are a huge part of why people get really angry in these threads.

Yes, some editions have wider swings in power levels than others. This edition probably has the widest of all. That's why I like it, frankly. But all editions of D&D have as a core founding principle that the dm and the players work together to make the game work. If you're having imbalance issues, that's not a game problem, it's a table problem.

So it is never possible--even in principle--for a game to provide options that lead to disagreements, frustration, potentially even group dissolution? If my above claims were too extreme, surely "nope, it's totally impossible for the game to be at fault, it's always the players playing in bad faith" must be as well?

Again, this is a big part of why I bring up inexperienced players and, especially, DMs. A game that absolutely, unequivocally REQUIRES careful and constant at-table balance in order to work is one that makes the DM job much, much more difficult than it already was. Surely you can agree that making the DM's job much harder is an undesirable state, and should only be allowed if the reward is unequivocally worthwhile?

[Jack_Simth]

Is 3.5's imbalance really an issue? Or is it just the vocal minority who are making a mountain out of a molehill? Is tableside balance a fallacy like some people believe, or is it the natural state of a game that allows such a huge spectrum of play, to prevent things from creeping too far into an outlier position in their games?

It can be an issue.

It often isn't: 3.5 folks generally play with the same group for a very long time, and get used to the optimization of the table they're at - which means they're all playing at the same level, which is the sweet spot, whether that level happens to be BMX Bandit or Angel Summoner; as long as they're all BMX Bandits, or all Angel Summoners, or all at approximately the same level between, it doesn't matter, that's the sweet spot.

There are two easily-seen scenarios where the imbalance in the system becomes a problem:
1) When groups get shuffled, and someone who's used to the expected power level of Table A is now at Table B, which can be very significantly different.
2) When new players get together, the relatively random choices will often lead to significant power disparity.
In either scenario, there's a power disparity at the table between the players, and that is the problem. The DM can send challenges that paste the low-op folks to challenge the high-op folks (in which case, the low-op folks wonder why they're there, because they're not doing much), or the DM can send challenges that are pasted by the high-op folks (in which case, the low-op folks wonder why they're there, because they don't get a chance to do much). That's the bad spot, as it means folks aren't having fun, and fun is the point.

An experienced DM who's had those problems before (and recognized them for what they are) will generally have some variant of a "session 0" where such things get ironed out, and characters are toned up or down as needed... but not all DM's are experienced, and not all experienced DMs have had those problems before, and not all DM's who've had those problems before will recognize the root cause as being different optimization levels.

If the system was more constrained (see 4th or 5th edition D&D), then there would be much less of a power spread in the game, and when there's not as much of a power spread in the game, the power level of the individual characters is more the same across multiple tables (and across less focused choices), which avoids the Angel Summoner / BMX Bandit problem with players new to the game or with shuffled groups.
However: If the system was much more constrained, then you couldn't play the struggling waif and the neigh-omnipotent master of magic in the same system, and the extreme flexibility is one of the draws of a gaming system to a lot of folks.

So... pick your poison, really.

[Bartmanhomer]

I think there are certain classes that are better than other classes. Take wizards, clerics and druids for example. They're better than all other classes in the game if you optimized them in the right way. So I think the game is imbalanced in a way but I don't care if D&D 3.5 is imbalanced. As long as you're having fun that all it matters.

[JNAProductions]

I think there are certain classes that are better than other classes. Take wizards, clerics and druids for example. They're better than all other classes in the game if you optimized them in the right way. So I think the game is imbalanced in a way but I don't care if D&D 3.5 is imbalanced. As long as you're having fun that all it matters.

The issue is, it can often impede fun.

Tippy's table, with StP Erudites competing with gods, is great for him and his friends.

Little Timmy's table, where a Monk is considered too strong (look at all their features!) and Wizards take Toughness and get good mileage from it, is also great.

Now what happens when Timmy's friend Bart decides to play the Bear Druid, who wildshapes into a bear while summoning bears with a bear animal companion? It's full of theme, but is going to VASTLY overshadow the other players, and if Timmy is the DM, he's probably going to struggle to challenge Bart, ESPECIALLY without just wiping the rest of the party.

Edit: To clarify, I think 3.5 is an AWFUL system-it lies to you, it requires excessive amount of knowledge to make a party that works well together without anyone overshadowing anyone else, and it completely lacks focus on what it wants to be. DESPITE THAT! I think it's fun. I certainly wouldn't want to pick up a system as bad AND complex as 3.5 without the army of work that's been done before me in it, but with that work done, it's fun to mess around in the system.

In that aspect, it's quite good. But, were I to have a system designed, I'd want a considerable amount more focus on what I wanted to achieve with it.

[Bartmanhomer]

The issue is, it can often impede fun.

Tippy's table, with StP Erudites competing with gods, is great for him and his friends.

Little Timmy's table, where a Monk is considered too strong (look at all their features!) and Wizards take Toughness and get good mileage from it, is also great.

Now what happens when Timmy's friend Bart decides to play the Bear Druid, who wildshapes into a bear while summoning bears with a bear animal companion? It's full of theme, but is going to VASTLY overshadow the other players, and if Timmy is the DM, he's probably going to struggle to challenge Bart, ESPECIALLY without just wiping the rest of the party.

Edit: To clarify, I think 3.5 is an AWFUL system-it lies to you, it requires excessive amount of knowledge to make a party that works well together without anyone overshadowing anyone else, and it completely lacks focus on what it wants to be. DESPITE THAT! I think it's fun. I certainly wouldn't want to pick up a system as bad AND complex as 3.5 without the army of work that's been done before me in it, but with that work done, it's fun to mess around in the system.

In that aspect, it's quite good. But, were I to have a system designed, I'd want a considerable amount more focus on what I wanted to achieve with it.

I do agree with you, it can ruin everyone fun when a PC or NPC play a tier 1 class. Also I don't think it's the creator fault for creating a broken or overpower class.

[JNAProductions]

I do agree with you, it can ruin everyone fun when a PC or NPC play a tier 1 class. Also I don't think it's the creator fault for creating a broken or overpower class.

Then who's fault is it? Literally, who else CAN you blame?

I do agree that the degree of imbalance was an accident, but the general idea (of trap options and the like) was fully intentional.

[Bartmanhomer]

Then who's fault is it? Literally, who else CAN you blame?

I do agree that the degree of imbalance was an accident, but the general idea (of trap options and the like) was fully intentional.

I'm not blaming anyone for it. Of course, the game bound to have problems and the imbalance is the reason for it due to the tier system. I'm pretty sure the creator must have play test all class to see if it balance but......Ok fine, I can't defend the creators for the there imbalanced screw-up. It's their fault.

[JNAProductions]

Bit of a whiplash there, don'tcha think? :P

I will 100% fault the game designers for INTENDING to include trap options. That's just mean, jerk behavior that doesn't belong in a good game.

I will something like 65% fault them for the massive degree of imbalance. It's so damn MASSIVE and continued for so long that they HAD to be cognizant of it at some point, but especially in the core books, they can be forgiven. They were treading new waters, there's bound to be mistakes.

[druid91]

The imbalance is an issue even if user-end results indicate that it isn't and not in the same way user-end results make it appear to be when sourcing the imbalances themselves. A balanced system is better for everyone and the system itself than an imbalanced system is for people who either never see the imbalance because they're either not aware or play around it and a system that allows for a million options because of said imbalance.

Especially because the former, a balanced system, does not preclude all the options you want to have. It just makes them harder to implement because they need better quality testing. Which is a net win for everyone.

Honestly, it's not. Assymetrical games are a thing. People really put too much focus on Balance.

No. A fighter and a wizard SHOULDN'T be balanced. They should simply have what they need to be their archetype.

[JNAProductions]

Honestly, it's not. Assymetrical games are a thing. People really put too much focus on Balance.

No. A fighter and a wizard SHOULDN'T be balanced. They should simply have what they need to be their archetype.

But asymmetrical in what way?

The Smallville RPG has wildly varying levels of power (Lois Lane and Clark Kent are not even CLOSE to the same power level) but everyone has a similar amount of NARRATIVE power, so the game works and is fun.

Likewise, Ars Magica has three tiers of characters-the grogs, who are extras; companions, who are more important but not wizard level; and the wizards themselves. But a key distinction there is that everyone has their own wizard, and just trade roles depending on what's going on, and more importantly, the game never makes pretenses about grogs being just as important and valuable as wizards.

That's probably my number one issue-the game does everything short of outright stating (and it might actually, at some point-I haven't read all 3.5 books) that a Wizard of level X is equal to a Fighter of level X, and it's just not true.

[Bartmanhomer]

Bit of whiplash there, don't think? :P

I will 100% fault the game designers for INTENDING to include trap options. That's just mean, jerk behaviour that doesn't belong in a good game.

I will something like 65% fault them for the massive degree of imbalance. It's so damn MASSIVE and continued for so long that they HAD to be cognizant of it at some point, but especially in the core books, they can be forgiven. They were treading new waters, there's bound to be mistaken.

I don't know anything about trap options, So I can't vouch for my opinion on it but I will say this, I think most of the tier 1 magic is very broken.

[ezekielraiden]

I'm not blaming anyone for it. Of course, the game bound to have problems and the imbalance is the reason for it due to the tier system. I'm pretty sure the creator must have play test all class to see if it balance but......Ok fine, I can't defend the creators for the there imbalanced screw-up. It's their fault.

According to every scrap of information I've ever been able to find, all of the PHB classes in 3e and 3.5e were not playtested after level 5. The designers assumed that, as long as the rules worked up to level 5, they would work up to level 20.

Now, consider that "E6" is a popular format that hard caps characters at 6th level. I.e., only one level above where the game was definitively playtested and ironed out (I believe, primarily, so that everyone gets access to a distinctive benefit, like full-BAB classes getting an extra attack and both Sorcerers and Wizards getting 3rd level spells). I don't think it's at all coincidental that this is the point people chose for this format.

So...no, you really shouldn't assume that the designers rigorously playtested the stuff they released. If they didn't do so for the PHB, why would they do so for the supplements, that get far less time and attention?

[Bartmanhomer]

According to every scrap of information I've ever been able to find, all of the PHB classes in 3e and 3.5e were not playtested after level 5. The designers assumed that, as long as the rules worked up to level 5, they would work up to level 20.

Now, consider that "E6" is a popular format that hard caps characters at the 6th level. I.e., only one level above where the game was definitively playtested and ironed out (I believe, primarily, so that everyone gets access to a distinctive benefit, like full-BAB classes getting an extra attack and both Sorcerers and Wizards getting 3rd level spells). I don't think it's at all coincidental that this is the point people chose for this format.

So...no, you really shouldn't assume that the designers rigorously playtested the stuff they released. If they didn't do so for the PHB, why would they do so for the supplements, that get far less time and attention?

I never play E6 but does E6 have the same balanced issue as the original 3.5.

[Crichton]

Snip

You make some very valid points, and after reading your linked Monte Cook article, I think you may be right that their probably-good intentions got away from them.

To clarify, it's not that I don't think the system can be at fault. 3.5 is so full of problems it's not even funny.

It's just that the last 3.5e rulebook was published more than a decade ago, so at this point, there's not much point arguing about how much or little the system is the root of our balance/imbalance issues. It's much as Jack_Simth said above. By this point, if we're still playing 3.5, it's because we like the other aspects of the system enough to overlook what flaws it has. Any who don't think the good outweighs the bad has moved on to some other system, or should.

As for the examples of problems at the table that have been brought up, most, if not all, of those could have been solved preemptively with some discussion and planning on the part of the players and dm(again, as Jack_Simth pointed out, Session 0 is really, really important), and if not preemptively, they can be addressed as they come up. That's how an inexperienced dm who isn't equipped to handle such things becomes an experienced dm who is. 3.5 is a messed up system that - by design, I now know from your Cook article - rewards system mastery pretty much to the point of requiring it. I don't think wanting to reward learning the ins and outs of the system is a problem, in principle, but it certainly went too far. But, it has been more than ten years since the last of the rules were published, so at this point, it is what it is, and it isn't changing, so....



More importantly than any of that, or any of the rest of this discussion, I'd like to thank you, ezekielraiden, for responding with detailed, specific, and most importantly of all, kind, thought out words. You're a fine example of a positive, contributing member of the forum, and I thank you.

[JNAProductions]

A good game is easy to learn, but hard to master.

3.5 succeeds at the latter.

[Darth Ultron]

I don't think 3.5 is imbalanced because it's just a game, and words like 'balance' don't apply to most games. While a couple games are just pure mechanical progressions forward until there is a winner, most games are NOT like that. Most games have a huge element of randomness and chance and chaos...and more so then other types of games D&D is in this category.

The ''balance'' idea crept into RPGs from somewhere, along with the idea that everything under the sun must be balanced. It sounds like a great idea, so it gets support and cheers: but what does it mean? And most of all, how do you even do it? How can you make a balanced RPG that everyone would agree is balanced?

Really, the only way to do it is the Very Basic Way. Think of a ''perfect'' balanced game: Checkers. Each player uses the exact same rules and has the exact same number of game pieces. And the game simply moves forwards in never ending 'turns' until one player wins. A player might have skill or luck or a distraction that effects the game play and outcome, but everything *about* the game is balanced. Of course, Checkers does not really have the 'depth' of an RPG, but it is perfectly balanced.

You can have a balanced RPP, following the same 'basic' idea: have five character types, each has 10 it points and can do 10 damage all following the exact same rules. Of course the mechanics are basic, but you can always role play on top of it.

D&D took a huge wrong turn in the name of balance starting with 3.0E. D&D before was very unbalanced, if you had to call it that...but it also did not matter. One character had a 20% to do X, another had a +10 to damage, and another could to Y, but at a huge cost. With the huge, endless, mess of rules it was hard...mostly impossible to mechanically compare most things. Also D&D before 3E had HUGE limitations on characters and actions, plus drawbacks, costs, negative effects and side effects. And a large amount of 'mini games' too. In older D&D, you often used all the dice all the time. And maybe most of all: the DM really controlled the rules of the game and decided how the game was played.

3E attempted to streamline this and make it all based on the D20 and 'higher is always better", and mostly got rid of just about all the drawbacks, costs, negative effects and side effects. And made the big statement of The Official Game Rules: the books told you the rules and told you have the game was to be played exactly....the DM only need do what the rules tell them to do. As always with such things, it does sound and feel like a good idea. All to ''balance" the game.

And not only did it make things worse....it created dozens of more problems and did not even come close to solving the problem it was made to fix and solve.

[ezekielraiden]

You make some very valid points, and after reading your linked Monte Cook article, I think you may be right that their probably-good intentions got away from them.

To clarify, it's not that I don't think the system can be at fault. 3.5 is so full of problems it's not even funny.

It's just that the last 3.5e rulebook was published more than a decade ago, so at this point, there's not much point arguing about how much or little the system is the root of our balance/imbalance issues. It's much as Jack_Simth said above. By this point, if we're still playing 3.5, it's because we like the other aspects of the system enough to overlook what flaws it has. Any who don't think the good outweighs the bad has moved on to some other system, or should.

As for the examples of problems at the table that have been brought up, most, if not all, of those could have been solved preemptively with some discussion and planning on the part of the players and dm(again, as Jack_Simth pointed out, Session 0 is really, really important), and if not preemptively, they can be addressed as they come up. That's how an inexperienced dm who isn't equipped to handle such things becomes an experienced dm who is. 3.5 is a messed up system that - by design, I now know from your Cook article - rewards system mastery pretty much to the point of requiring it. I don't think wanting to reward learning the ins and outs of the system is a problem, in principle, but it certainly went too far. But, it has been more than ten years since the last of the rules were published, so at this point, it is what it is, and it isn't changing, so....



More importantly than any of that, or any of the rest of this discussion, I'd like to thank you, ezekielraiden, for responding with detailed, specific, and most importantly of all, kind, thought out words. You're a fine example of a positive, contributing member of the forum, and I thank you.

You, also, make some solid points, and I can agree that getting excessively worked up about a game that's going on two decades old is a bit silly. (I am a silly man, so I still do it, I'm afraid.) One of the problems, for me, is that while the game's root remains, people who re-publish it--e.g. Pathfinder 1e, and now Porphyra in its wake--seem rather keen on keeping it, more or less, where it was. For every step forward they make, there's often another step, or two, backward, and that deeply frustrates me. Plus, the antipathy that actually balanced supplements get--like Tome of Battle and its spiritual successor Path of War--sometimes makes me despair that anyone ever will address these things in a 3e-type framework. It feels like too many people are convinced that the only way to get the game they want is for the game to make certain classes world-shattering and others barely at the level of IRL Olympic athletes.

And if I may be frank? I didn't feel that kind while posting those things, so I'm very glad you felt that way. I was worried I was much too aggressive, and am glad that (for once) I worried when I shouldn't, rather than the other way around.

[Crichton]

One of the problems, for me, is that while the game's root remains, people who re-publish it--e.g. Pathfinder 1e, and now Porphyra in its wake--seem rather keen on keeping it, more or less, where it was. For every step forward they make, there's often another step, or two, backward, and that deeply frustrates me.

I think those types of '3.75' continuation systems, at least at the point they started, felt like they were pointed into a corner, a bit. My (very limited) understanding is that 4e came out, the community raged with backlash over how different it felt/was, and Paizo stepped in, saying 'we've got your real continuation of 3.5 right here' and so, to court the market share they were targeting, they couldn't make any sweeping changes to how it all worked, especially if they wanted to stick to their advertised 'compatible with 3.5 materials' shtick.

It feels like too many people are convinced that the only way to get the game they want is for the game to make certain classes world-shattering and others barely at the level of IRL Olympic athletes.

Which is sad. I take the unpopular opinion that to attempt some semblance of balance, it's not the ceiling that should be lowered, but rather the floor should be elevated. I fully admit that that's at best a partial solution, but as primarily a player of caster types, I don't want people nerfing my toys, but I'm totally ok with martials getting nice things to. Personally, I'm quite fond of ToB. It's not perfect, but it is pretty nice.

And if I may be frank? I didn't feel that kind while posting those things, so I'm very glad you felt that way. I was worried I was much too aggressive, and am glad that (for once) I worried when I shouldn't, rather than the other way around.

You were specific, detailed, and courteous, rather than dismissive, condescending, and rude. You addressed what I said, rather than effectively telling me to shove off. I appreciate you.

[Bartmanhomer]

Pathfinder still has the same balanced issue as well. Just wanted to point that out.

[skunk3]

For me it is not an issue at all so long as all of the players in a group know what the expected power and optimization levels are to be for a given campaign. Sure, 3.5e is riddled with imbalance issues but so what? Personally I love the huge array of options available and that's why I exclusively play 3.5e. I hated 4th edition and haven't tried 5th yet, but I based upon what I've heard about it I think I'd prefer to stick with what I already know. Players know there is going to be a power disparity in games... as long as they aren't egotistical and can handle not being in the spotlight and/or can play characters that aren't uber optimized every single time (favoring flavor over mechanical effectiveness) it's fine. Also, the DM should know exactly what people are planning to do with their builds at all times so they don't get caught off guard by some feat chain or class abilities that make them much more effective all of a sudden. I fully support "rule zero" and think that a DM is well within his or her rights to say that this or that option is not available due to imbalance relative to the power level of the game they are running. I think the biggest problem I've encountered in 3.5e land is that the game has been around for so long now that people are developing a real mastery of it and memorizing countless classes, feats, and obscure abilities, ACFs, etc. They tend to create characters based upon mechanical effectiveness rather than story, flavor, roleplay, etc. (Of course they never admit this.)