Fixing 3.5

[Anastasia]

There's been a lot of discussion over the past years about what needs to be fixed in 3.5, and if it needs to be fixed at all. Anyone who's familiar with this can go on about the arguments they've seen, from super casters to fighters suck to spell abuses to what have you.  I've been thinking about this and I have a few questions.

1: Does 3.5 need to be fixed? Why or why not?

2: What needs to be fixed?

3: How would you fix it? Why?

[Corwin]

It needs a paladin that smites people because they're uglier. Seriously.

[Anastasia]

It needs a paladin that smites people because they're uglier. Seriously.

You're completely missing the point of the topic.

[Merc]

As a whole, I don't think it needs to be fixed. The main reason for this, however, is not because it's not broken, but simply because the established player base for it -knows- where it's broken, and generally knows how to avoid those pitfalls while keeping the game fun.

To some degree, the system is obsolete, as there are no new books coming out for it, and at some point, the only way to get books is to download them from the internet, or buy them on ebay. So there aren't going to be a whole lot of new players joining in, and those that do, will generally be surrounded by at least some experienced players that can help guide them around those pitfalls.

Generally, the things to keep in mind are that:
1) Level 1 sucks. Just about anything can kill you at this level. Experienced players, usually fix this by simply starting at level 3-5, however. Alternatively,a lot of games that might want to start at level 1, simply give players as 'heroic characters' a bonus 10-20 HP.
2) In general, 'super casters' exist not so much because melee classes suck (although some really do, like fighter and samurai), but because there are so many spells where melee has limited options, and a lot of those spells are broken. Banning those broken spells, if not full out-right limiting spell lists is one way of going about it. In general, however, this tends to depend on the GM and players. How well can you trust them not to abuse those spells if they're playing a caster? If you're not sure, keeping the game from going past level 10-12 is something of a controlling measure, as most of the truly broken spells show up after that.
3) Your mileage may vary, but as mentioned, one of the things that make super casters is the sheer number of options they get. Tome of Battle introduced a precursor to 4e's style of gameplay by giving melee similar options. It's got a really magicky feel to it though, and while I do like it to some degree, I know Dune hates it. Similar to the option of adding this book as a splatbook option, a balancing option for casters is to limit the number of splatbooks they have available.

Obviously though, none of these are real 'fixes' as such, merely ways of controlling issues with the system.

This is a system that's been around for almost 10 years (if you count 3e, only 6 years or so if you just count 3.5e). People have been playing it for that long. They -know- where the cheat modes are. If you as a group want to break the game, you're welcome to Pun-Pun and the like. If not, generally, you all know how to avoid those points and just have fun. No fixes necessary.

[Anastasia]

There's been a lot of discussion over the past years about what needs to be fixed in 3.5, and if it needs to be fixed at all. Anyone who's familiar with this can go on about the arguments they've seen, from super casters to fighters suck to spell abuses to what have you.  I've been thinking about this and I have a few questions.

1: Does 3.5 need to be fixed? Why or why not?

2: What needs to be fixed?

3: How would you fix it? Why?

1: It could use some patching, but it's not critical. Merc's right in that player knowledge will prevent most of the abuse. Epic needs more work, but that's tangential and I don't feel it's really the main thrust of the question here.

2: Spell control. There's some abusive spells out there and they need to be nerfed. Past that, DM vigilance and player agreement work well.  Any system can be broken, there's no point in obsessing over every detail. Grapple and other maneuvers in battle are a bit clunky, though Pathfinder's CMD wasn't the solution I was hoping for, so I dunno. I don't view fighters/paladins/ect being worthless past a certain level(Due to dead levels and what have you) as a problem since the system is so easy to multiclass andPrC with.

3: I'd nerf the worst spells first of all. If I wanted to be more strict, I'd impose a limit on the number of spells a wizard knows. A maximum spell capacity like a sorcerer, though higher than the sorc's. Clerics would have spells sorted by spheres and domains(2nd edition did something sort of like this) for better balance. Not sure about druids offhand. For the rest? Eh.

[Corwin]

I don't think it needs 'fixing' as such. It could use more fun options that don't change the system entirely or don't present the fun at the expense of other aspects. Just about any 'special attack' requires specialization to be worthwhile and is usually cumbersome even if you've played D&D before. An easier system or arbitration, as well as an insentive for most characters and not just those explicitely build for grappling and such should enjoy it. Turning is apparently another 'special attack', but it makes grown men cry to learn how it works by heart, and even then all it does is make the XP run away unless you specialize by using Sun/Glory domains and similar methods.

Some spells need to go! I do think mages should have other options, and that reserve feats are a step in the right direction there. Why shouldn't a high level wizard be able to spam low-level spells like magic missile? As is, he can either fight really badly, use a spell and fight better than the melee types, or use an I Win spell (of which he could theorethically run out, if it's a series of encounters). That's just stupid, as far as I'm concerned, and probably why so many gish builds exist. If wizards had a developed fallback option of their own instead of robbing the fightery ones (while eliminating some of the spells/builds to create the latter), it might be better for all involved.

[Carthrat]

I have no real interest in doing some wide-scale system fix of D&D and don't think it really needs it, per se. Like Merc said, most people who play these days know the score, and I at least know that any D&D game I plan on running is going to involve tweaking the system to specifications.

If you want to get technical, it's true that certain spells break the game in half an I don't think simply limiting what's avaliable is going to help too much there. Old offenders like fly, scry, anything that incapacitiates or neuters multiple people at once, they're always going to dominate and there's not really much you can do about that. Nerfing them feels rather unsatisfactory.

[Merc]

Angel Summoner and BMX Bandit

[Anastasia]

I have no real interest in doing some wide-scale system fix of D&D and don't think it really needs it, per se. Like Merc said, most people who play these days know the score, and I at least know that any D&D game I plan on running is going to involve tweaking the system to specifications.

If you want to get technical, it's true that certain spells break the game in half an I don't think simply limiting what's avaliable is going to help too much there. Old offenders like fly, scry, anything that incapacitiates or neuters multiple people at once, they're always going to dominate and there's not really much you can do about that. Nerfing them feels rather unsatisfactory.

I'd argue that some nerfs are needed. Certain lower level spells like Glitterdust and Rope Trick are obscenely good for what they can do.

[Dracos]

I'll rephrase the question.

Would any of us complain if someone went through, stripped out save or die/save or suck spells or superutility spells and cleaned up the spell libraries?  If someone had decent starter rules that were integrated and easily used to start from level 1?  If the 4-5 skills that have totally incoherent rules had decent ones in the book (Diplomacy for instance)?  

Yes, it could use fixing, in addition to the minor twinking every gm will do.  But nobody is ever going to do it and the game (like most) suffers partially from the creators being fiscally rewarded for pumping out splatbooks and not for maintaining reasonable balance in them.

It's a game that plays fine, especially as the majority of players these days have played it many years and know the score, but it is like a clubhouse with holes in the wall and floor and some of the equipment broken.  Sure folks can play there, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have merit in patching up the broken planks.

I've joined in on a number of these threads so far, so I won't give another runby of how I would fix it.  Largely, we just ignore the ugly parts and carry on.