Decline The good and bad of D&D 3.x

[vivec]

Why is this thread on gRPG forums? It is to point out problems in D&D on which so many cRPGs are based or inspired from. By understanding where D&D (in my opinion; you can state your opinion below) fails we can understand why many cRPGs fail to be great games.

What is this thread not about? How badly balanced D&D is. Sure, we all know it. Balancing, however, is a separate issue because how extensive it is.

Also, NB. I *love* D&D 3.5 despite all its faults. It's a great system to kickstart a game for those who have played RPGs before. It can be used cleverly to create low to mid-level adventures that feel epic without hitting epic levels.

To get to the point at hand without much ado:

The good of D&D 3.5 is the spell variety. You get a lot of some amazingly well-written stuff that despite being broken badly comes with a lot of flavours. Most spells are combat focused and thus boring. But the out of combat spells is where the strength of the spell system lies. They are *also* broken but with proper resource enforcement and clever DM management, they shine a lot to produce fantastic RP opportunities. These include divination and summoning spells as well as the enchantment and the illusion school spells.

The second major strength of D&D is the monsters and their templates that allow you to construct a wide menagerie of beasties to threaten players.

The weaknesses sadly are many.

1. HP. HPs do nothing other than track a progress bar of how long the enemy can last. The reduction in HP does nothing else to the enemy. Suggested fix: Replace with a wounds system, where the would deteriorate your stats somehow.

2. HP bloat: Leveling leads to increase in HP that only makes the above problem worse. Suggested Solution: See above.

3. Attack bonus / Skills / Saves like HP bloat without producing a noticeable effect after a while. Once you have the skill level of 15, the challenge level of the roll has to artificially increase to justify higher skill level. Suggested solution: make skill system point buy and make it incrementally costly to improve. Make saves static and add modifiers based on feats/attributes. Make attack bonus a skill associated with a weapon. So instead of weapon proficiency implying a perfect understanding of a weapon, make weapon categories (bladed, blunt, ranged etc) and invest skill points there.

4. AC: Armor class is one of the worst systems in D&D. It does have granulation but that granulation adds up to the same number. Why not instead have a separate dodge skill and a parry skill while armour is DR? I am curious to hear your opinions on this.

Please add your own criticisms to bloat this list.

 

[octavius]

This has the potential to be a high autism thread.

 

[Alkarl]

I would like to critique/expand your criticisms with my own:

1&2: I think this is do-able. I'm often put off by games that keep ratcheting both mob/enemy and pc health up. A wound system would be interesting, with different severity of wounds requiring more or less immediacy and others temporarily to permanently reducing combat ability (ie a bruised shoulder versus a missing arm)

3 is a tricky one. What you're proposing isn't too dissimilar from what is already in place, but I think it would at least alleviate the issue. I like the way Shadowrun handles it by giving you a governing category, and then skill types under it. So, say, a Melee skill that can be increased as well as specific weapon-types underneath.

4: DR isn't a terrible system. You could even break it out by damage type and modifier. For instance, if wearing Plate, you'd be immune to, say slashing damage under a total score of x. You could even carry this further with different material types, etc. Add in a speed penalty for heavier armor for balance?

 

[ERYFKRAD]

Good: Barbarians

Bad: Who gives a crap it has barbarians Irrelevant.

 

[vivec]

Yeah, Barbarians have than enhancement bonus to run speed for, you know, to run away.

 

[ERYFKRAD]

Yeah, Barbarians have than enhancement bonus to run speed for, you know, to run towards enemies faster.

Fixed that for you.

 

[UglyBastard]

Probably the worst problem with it is that it is non-inclusive, especially towards women.

 

[Background Character]

That can't be real

Oh it is

 

[octavius]

I bet he started playing D&D to meet hot chicks.

 

[jungl]

Sounds like you rather be playing drakensang. I personally hate wounds and all the other shit you mentioned.

 

[Melan]

All of these criticisms could have been made against D&D in 2003, 1994, 1986, or 1975, and they were. Almost identical points were already being made in the early issues of Alarums & Excursions, and they were instrumental in the popularity of Runequest in the late 1970s.

Nevertheless, D&D remains the most popular RPG system on the market, while most of its challengers have died or sunk back into obscurity. These features are part of D&D's draw, and are crucial to the game balance it maintains.

 

[Alkarl]

Sounds like you rather be playing drakensang. I personally hate wounds and all the other shit you mentioned.

If you don't mind my asking, why do you hate wounds as a system? Just for some personal insight, I haven't ever really messed with a system that used them or used them particularly well.
I'm curious cause I'm working on a thing.

 

[vivec]

All of these criticisms could have been made against D&D in 2003, 1994, 1986, or 1975, and they were. Almost identical points were already being made in the early issues of Alarums & Excursions, and they were instrumental in the popularity of Runequest in the late 1970s.

Nevertheless, D&D remains the most popular RPG system on the market, while most of its challengers have died or sunk back into obscurity. These features are part of D&D's draw, and are crucial to the game balance it maintains.

I think D&D have survived for other reasons. Such as immense base popularity; it is a brand in the gaming world and immediately recognizable. It has (apparently) good fiction associated with, although I must confess that I never encountered it. Finally, some of its setting design is really good and evocative. I would say that D&D is popular *despite* its faults.

 

[Dorateen]

Compared to the previous editions of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, I would list the following as bad:

"Darkvision"
All characters use the same experience level table
Removal of THAC0
Ascending armour class
Only three categories of saving throws

 

[Jason Liang]

Well yesterday I spent some time working on an rpg system from scratch, and even then I ended up building using 3E as a base (but getting rid of the shitty skill system of course). Why?

PROS
1) Let's start with the primary attribute system. The six core D&D attributes are just ingrained into the RPG experience. It's pretty difficult to get rid of any of the six. Now, you can possibly add more primary attributes, but that has the cost of making the game more complicated, so it must be justified. IMO it's really difficult to justify.
a. Strength - the only thing you can really do with strength it perhaps to merge it with Con, but that has a balance problem in that it would greatly reduce the stats that an Ugly Fighter would care about
b. Intelligence - another absolutely necessary primary attribute. Sure, it's really difficult to role-play in PnP, but that's not a problem in a computer game
c. Dexterity - Sort of an overloaded attribute since it covers everything from agility to manual dexterity to perception to reaction
d. Wisdom - wisdom is a necessary contrast to intelligence and helps take over some of the perception tasks from Dexterity. Making it the primary attribute for the priest class is somewhat of a stretch, but D&D has sort of ingrained that connection in the fantasy genre. Now, it would be possible to move Wisdom from a primary attribute to a gained attribute, as Wisdom is something that grows with time. That would open Wisdom up to be replaced with either Faith/ Piety, or Willpower, two attributes that commonly take the place of Wisdom. But just like Strength and Con need to be split, so does there need to be a mental attribute that contrasts with Intellect.
e. Charisma - I think there's no question that there needs to be a social primary attribute to base social skills off of.
f. Constitution - Probably the most dubious of D&D's primary attributes. It's not absolutely distinguishable from strength and in CRPGs it's usually either dumped, or maxed if playing on iron-man. I'm not opposed to merging it with Strength, but it would still need to be replaced with a secondary physical attribute, like Dark Eye's Courage.

As far as alternative primary attributes are concerned, the only ones that I find interesting are Perception and Courage. Perception would take some of load off of Dexterity, which would make things much more balanced. Courage or Valor is quite interesting as it creates a mental attribute valuable to warrior classes.

Nonetheless, it seems that 6 is the ideal number of primary attributes - three "physical" and three "mental," or alternately two "physical" (STR and DEX), two "mental" (INT and WIS/WILL/VAL) and two "hybrid" (CHA and PER).

2) The d20 system. A primary attribute system that ranges from ~ 1-20, with 9/10 being the middle, is quite intuitive. Above 10 you gain bonuses. Below 10 you incur penalties. Very intuitive and you don't have to work with negative numbers.

3) Universal attribute modifiers. This is also a great idea and makes it easy to understand attributes. 12 gives a +1 bonus, 8 gives a -1 penalty. Whether it's a savings throw modifier, a skill modifier, Hit Die modifier or Attack Bonus modifier, it's a elegant and clever system.

4) 3E Skills. Now I'm only talking about skill implemented in computer games, specifically NWN and ToEE. How they're implemented has a lot of problems, but some skill concepts from these games are good ideas for generic skills. The ones I like:
a. Lore - which has a lot of potential for computer games, especially if you look at how it's used in AoD
b. Spellcraft (or Spell Lore) - NWN's implementation is clever, using it to both identify spells in combat and provide a savings throw bonus against spells
c. Crafting - I think crafting is a nearly universally accepted subsystem of RPGs introduced by 3E
d. Stealth - Obviously Stealth had precursors, but 3E innovated by making it a generic skill. Also fits intuitively with the attribute/ d20 system, with heavy armor incurring a DEX modifier penalty
e. Discipline - a skill with a lot of potential, useful for many situations in combat and some outside of combat, making it a valuable skill
f. Listen - has a lot of potential gameplay applications and also used to directly counter stealth
g. Appraisal - While NWN didn't do much with this, it seems like a skill that could have a lot of computer RPG applications. For example, Appraisal could be used to identify extra loot from random encounters

In conclusion, these skills from 3E have established themselves as "core" RPG skills that should be implemented in any robust compuer RPG system.

5) Alignment System - inherited from previous D&D editions, the D&D 3X3 alignment system has proven over time to be universally applicable and robust, and has established itself as a fantasy staple.

6) Spontaneous Casting - This 3E innovation solved many of the problems of AD&D spellcasting and dramatically improved the play of both Clerics (spontaneously cast Cure spells) and Druids (spontaneously cast Summon spells)

7) Animal Companions - by creating a formal Animal Companion system, 3E revolutionized both the Ranger class and the Druid class, making both classes super cool. Even though Ranger is one of the worst Pillars classes, the Animal Companion still makes it cool.

8) Crossbows - 3E helped crossbows become an accepted staple of the RPG genre weaponry repetoire, by making it the default ranged weapon of choice for Sorcerers and other non-Martial classes. 15 years later, crossbows are everywhere from Assassin's Creed to the Summer Olympics.

9) Attacks of Opportunity - A great innovation that elegantly implements engagement rules in combat.

10) Dual-wielding/ Double-sided Weapons - 3E's formalized dual-wielding system is a huge improvement to previous dual-wielding systems. It created a system where now it's possible to balance dual-wielding without making it either too weak or too OP. Double-sided weapons suitable for dual-wielders, like crossbows, have now become a fantasy RPG weaponry staple.

 

[Jason Liang]

CONS

Fuck, where to start. 3E is an abomination and atrocity that continues to wreck RPG design even today. I don't what to rehash myself for the upteenth time but you guys can find the other thread for the analysis. To summarize, 3E's class system, retarded dual classing, and prestige classes are all shit. 3E's formal feat system is open to debate, but it did start the slippery slope that birthed 4E.

1. Core Classes
11 Core Classes is definitely too many. While the ideal number of core classes is demonstratably more than the classic 4- warrior, priest, rogue and wizard- 11 is too much. Barbarian, Paladin, Ranger and Bard have been earned the core status. Druid is getting there, although implementing Druid spells and abilities adds a lot of work to making a computer RPG. However, I think it's safe to say that Monk and Sorcerer should not be RPG character classes. Sorcerers function almost identically to Wizards in gameplay and are too similar conceptually as well. Now, I do like the "idea" of a class that has innate magical abilities, like a "mutant" class, but it's just too diverse to actually implement into a strict class system, especially one that does not allow dual/ multiclassing.
Monks should clearly be axed. First of all, the class itself is a bizarre marriage between Western monks (Friar Tuck, Martin Luther) and Eastern monks (Xuanzhang, who most people in the West have never even heard of). Second, the only real role that Monks have established in actual combat gameplay are some sort of specialized "magekillers." Which really have nothing at all to do with Monks in literature. Monks are just a terrible ideal for an adventurer class. There are no monks in LotR. There are no monk adventurers in Dragonlance's Heroes 9. The only Monk in literature who was an actual adventurer is Xuanzhang and most gamers in the West don't know who that is.
Tinkerer/ Inventor/ Gadgeteer or Ninja/ Assassin are closer to being a true adventurer class than Monk.
Anyway, 3E adding Monks and Sorcerers as core classes was stupid.

2. Prestige Classes
wtf is a Prestige class supposed to be. A character class already defines the character's past, present and future. Fuck prestige classes.

3. 3E multi-classing
Fuck 3E multiclassing. Retarded.

4. Class skills
Fuck class skills. Either make it a class ability or make it a general skill anyone can learn without penalty. If a class has a skill affinity, make that a class feature. And fuck that "take 1st level as rogue for skill points" shenanigans.

5. Feat system
I really don't have time to get into detail about 3E feats. There's obvious balance issues, although it is a nice way of implementing the Fighter/ Warrior class.

6. Skill points on level up
Fuck skill points on level up. In fact, fuck skill point systems period.

7. d20 System
OTOH, the problem with all rolls being d20 is that it makes the roll much more significant than a small modifier. Modifiers have to be quite large (+5+ ) to consistently make a difference on a d20 scale. A smaller die, like d6 or d12, is better for gaming purposes. Even the traditional d12+d8 is a better system since it makes a +1 modifier much more effective. Rolling a string of highs (19's and 20's) or lows (2's and 3's) make modifiers useless.

 

[aweigh]

while i admit 2E is overall a better system of D&D for "role-playing" I cannot help but opine that 3E (and by extension 3.5E) is the pinnacle of D&D providing the best of all worlds for combat-fags and larp-fags.

Seriously, how can anyone decry 3.5E as anything but incline especially when it concerns an overlap with electronic video games? Knights of the Chalice is a goddamn autistic masterpiece and it is thanks to 3.5E.

 

[Sinatar]

I can't stand the way 3e handles multi-classing, and the whole prestige class bandage they came up with to try and make multiclassing viable was the drizzling shits.

 

[McPlusle]

I miss class kits. That's basically my whole argument for AD&D 2nd being the superior system.

 

[TigerKnee]

Pros: You can make some really silly builds with Multiclassing.

Cons: You can make some really silly builds with Multiclassing.

 

[Sykar]

I bet he started playing D&D to meet hot chicks.

What's wrong with that?

 

[nikolokolus]

As a cRPG system I think it works fine as a Skinner box; it doles out lots of regularly scheduled rewards, it has a pretty steep power curve that makes every level-up feel meaningful and even though the mechanics aren't spectacular, they are easy enough to learn and are basically a lingua franca of the hobby at this point.

Where 3.x falls apart is the amount of broken builds you can create and a truly shit skills system, with it's never-ending DC escalation that only rewards maximizing skill points.

Long and short of it, I'd play another 3.x game if the premise seemed interesting enough, but no fucking way would I ever DM another game.

 

[Kyl Von Kull]

I tried to get into a 3.0 tabletop campaign in college and I ended up walking out during character creation—“what the fuck is a feat?” I didn’t realize that they’d changed the rules until I showed up at my DM’s dorm. Maybe I would’ve been more receptive if I hadn’t been expecting sweet sweet second edition.

Also these two girls had said they’d be there, but (surprise!) they were NOT there. If either had come I probably would’ve toughed it out.

 

[deuxhero]

Jason Liang
Interestingly enough, Star Wars: Saga Edition is pretty much everything you say you wanted in that post. There's only 5 class or, in some campaigns, only 4. Everyone is a spontaneous caster if they're a caster. The skill list is further consolidated from the video game consolidations, skills are trained or untrained for a character, and bonuses are either +5, the option to reroll or (for damage) an extra die of damage. Feats are better balanced too. Prestige classes are very specialized roles ("Ace Pilot" is pretty terrible at anything but piloting) or smaller facets that don't justify a full class. Hit points are present, but they're augmented by a threshold system so powerful attacks cause penalties but smaller attacks can still wear you down (this is roughly similar to how DSA/Blackguards works)

Only thing it might not fix is multiclassing, but you give no information on why you dislike it. No class has abilities gain at fixed level except their proficiencies, of which you only get one of if you multiclass into the class (Armor OR Rifle proficiency), and class skills, so if you hate it encouraging players to go through 4+ classes to pick up early abilities (Barbarian 1 for fast movement, fighter 2 for some bonus feats) it fixes it. There's natural reasons to multiclass, like a soldier with abilities that debuff enemies they attack grabbing 3 levels in Noble (which is the class for random officers and just poorly named) to spend the two talents they pick up on buffing abilities. On the same token though there's no benefit to staying in a class for higher levels other than to keep picking its talents/bonus feats and being able to get things prerequisite locked (of which the highest in almost all cases is 2 other talents required, requiring a max level of 5 to get). In general characters higher level characters gain more varried and more versatile abilities than gaining expotentially stronger ones (Same with loot. Money is more options on tricky gadgets instead of +2 to hit).

 

[Telengard]

If you don't mind my asking, why do you hate wounds as a system? Just for some personal insight, I haven't ever really messed with a system that used them or used them particularly well.
I'm curious cause I'm working on a thing.

I'll take that one up, but this is a question that has been answered many times on the Codex, so you can search out as many other accounts as you feel like.

*

Unfortunately, the reasoning against wounds (and, it should be noted, Dodge rolls and DR fall under the same argument) are manifold and subtle, which means most people take one look at the argument, and just ignore it in order to keep believing in their faith in some system that can finally mimic reality. But to sum it all up: the pursuit of reality in an rpg is much like the pursuit of reality in a modern fps, where the devs spend months and millions of dollars making sure the dust flies around just right when the helicopter lands on the pad, and so end up spending less and less time and money ensuring that shooting the guns is, you know, fun.

The crux of a wounding system is that they apply penalties to someone wounded. (The word "penalty" is the important part of that sentence.) So, as in real life, in a fight between equals, the first person to get wounded is very likely going to die. Even a -1 penalty on a d20 sharply reduces the window of opportunity for an opponent to succeed, as they might have had a 25% to succeed in an attack, now they have a 20%, which (speaking in averages) means their opponent now gets an extra round to wail on them before they will successfully hit back. And on top of that, the penalty also makes it 5% more likely that they will fail a subsequent Wound Resistance roll and gain a second wound. Thus, the first wound starts a mechanical death spiral that is difficult to pull out of. (Now, most people immediately argue that their PCs have succeeded many times after being wounded, but rpg combats are not between equals. The first wound to a PC just makes the fight closer to actually being between equals, while if the enemy gets wounded first, they start death spiraling super fast.)

To put it into modern Build terms, an opponent built to have a high movement rate and To Hit but low toughness, with the intention of running up and getting a few hits gets in, that creature has its effectiveness broken by the first wound, and is much less likely to get a couple more good hits in before it dies. That, while an opponent built to have lots of stamina and toughness but low attack skill, that creature is rendered ineffectual by the first wound it receives, since it now has a terrible chance of landing any hits before it eventually dies. You can, of course, counter the above effects by building everyone with wound resistances and combat defenses, but then why even have wounding in the first place? - So PCs can lord it even more powerfully over weak creatures that have a low number of feats, and thus can't have those wound resistances?

Secondarily, wounds typically involve wound tables, and thus roll bloat. Every attack has multiple rolls to define what it is, with multiple tiered results based on those results. And that greatly slows the game down. As bad as 3e fights can drag, imagine doing 3x the work for each roll.

And to top it all off, since this whole concept is all about realism (or rather a common lack of ability of people to be able to think in the abstract), those who decide to implement it tend to want to have different types of wounding effects, instead of just wounded being a singular -1 penalty universally applied. And multiple types of wounds means a table where different effects have a different chance of occurring, that relative chance depending on the type of wound's considered rarity. And that not only means even more roll bloat, it results from someone not understanding ratios, and the fact that any one result, however rare it is made, can happen on the first roll. For instance, the RuneQuest critical hit table, which in an early form involved making a singular roll on a critical table, with a varying chance of different wound results, but also a chance on that table of a result indicating to roll on the devastating critical table, with a chance there of having to roll multiple times and keep both results. Long story short, in the first attack roll I ever made in RuneQuest, I critical failed, and in one swing lopped of my friend's head and cut off my own arm. And since there isn't much chance of healing in the early game, my friend was permanently dead and I was permanently maimed.

It's a funny end, to be sure, but remember to think of it as a game. We all set aside a bunch of time, spent a lot more time getting prepared, and the game ended on the first roll made by anyone. Thus, the game itself was a game that forget that the first rule of a game is to be a game, and not an obsessive's list of stacked tables, finicky rules, and slot-machine style luck that can end in immediate defeat.