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

[DavidBVal]

It takes some dedication to DM the Enemy Within, for sure, but damn, so many memories flowing. Unforgettable scenes, the humor, the twists. And it invented the "modern" concept of sandbox campaigns so popular now, and did it far better than any other I've read.

My memory's a bit foggy, but wasn't it The Enemy Within campaign where they

Spoiler

baited you with the promise of riches, for it all just to be bullshit? Whichever campaign it was, I remember playing it and, long after the rest of us had sussed out it was all rubbish, one of the players was still wanting to push on in search of these riches . Sometime stupidly late in the game when we'd slayed a greater demon or something he was like "right, let's go get that coin!"

Yep, that's the one. :D

 

[Cael]

I still don't even get what "balanced" means in all this context, and if what people complain about is "a Wizard would always defeat a Fighter in an hypothetical arena fight" I don't see the problem. Just play a wizard if such factor is a priority for you.

There's legitimate criticism to be done on 3.x, plenty of it, but "balance" is a MMORPG concept that should have never left the guild chat.

People trying to balance wizard vs fighter when you are fighting a balor

 

[DavidBVal]

I still don't even get what "balanced" means in all this context, and if what people complain about is "a Wizard would always defeat a Fighter in an hypothetical arena fight" I don't see the problem. Just play a wizard if such factor is a priority for you.

There's legitimate criticism to be done on 3.x, plenty of it, but "balance" is a MMORPG concept that should have never left the guild chat.

People trying to balance wizard vs fighter when you are fighting a balor

Or a kobold trying to slit your throat in the night. Or raising an iron grate or disarming a trap or or seeing through deception, or laughing at succubi tempting you, or leading a revolution, or stealing a key from the jailer's belt, or seducing the Queen, or surviving a sea storm.

That's what a tabletop RPG should be about; if "inferior DPS" ruins the fun for someone, he should be playing Descent instead. It's ok, not everyone is worthy.

 

[Nathaniel3W]

Or a kobold trying to slit your throat in the night. Or raising an iron grate or disarming a trap or or seeing through deception, or laughing at succubi tempting you, or leading a revolution, or stealing a key from the jailer's belt, or seducing the Queen, or surviving a sea storm.

Casters can handle all of that as well as or better than anyone else in the party. I'm not saying that's necessarily a problem. But it does make it very easy for one player to do everything, and everyone else is just along for the ride.

That's what a tabletop RPG should be about; if "inferior DPS" ruins the fun for someone, he should be playing Descent instead. It's ok, not everyone is worthy.

I once played a game where one character was a knight and the other was his squire. And we had tons of fun, and the squire had his own unique challenges and adventures even though the major plot was focused on what the knight was doing. But that adventure worked, and it was fun, because of an experienced DM and players. But not everyone is an experienced RP gamer and a system that's supposed to be accessible to beginners should try to balance the game so everyone at the table has a chance to shine.

That being said, I still love D&D 3.x specifically because of its imbalance, quirks, and inscrutable rules and errata. I just wouldn't recommend it to beginners.

 

[The Avatar]

The whole "Casters are gods and better than other classes" attitude is overrated. They are more powerful, but only when they have spell slots. Most games are low-level, where the Wizard only has a few spell slots. The balance of the game assumes that there will be multiple encounters in-between resting and regaining spells, so if you blow your load all in one encounter, you're going to relegated to firing a crossbow in the back. In my experience, many DM's don't stress casters enough and instead let them regain spell slots between sessions or encounters. By contrast, Fighters can keep swinging that sword forever.

There is also the idea of pre-buffing which is usually only realistic for exploring with spells that are at least 10/min level. It's rare to have a situation where you'll be able to cast multiple spells right before a battle, like some kind of video game.

Finally, casters are dependent on martial characters to take down all those bad guys they just disabled with Grease/Stinking Cloud/Web/Hideous Laughter ect. The blaster Wizard isn't that great in 3.5 and you'd be wasting precious spell slots with Magic Missiles.

Casters aren't as powerful as people make them out to be, and the nerfs they got in 5th ed and Pathfinder 2e are unwarranted.

 

[DavidBVal]

Or a kobold trying to slit your throat in the night. Or raising an iron grate or disarming a trap or or seeing through deception, or laughing at succubi tempting you, or leading a revolution, or stealing a key from the jailer's belt, or seducing the Queen, or surviving a sea storm.

Casters can handle all of that as well as or better than anyone else in the party.

Yes... if they know it's happening beforehand, have the slots for it and spend them. Meanwhile certain noncasters will be naturally suited for many of those situations without needing preparation for it.

I just wouldn't recommend it to beginners.

Absolutely agreed, although not for the "balance" between classes, but for the slow combat and for the feat hell.

 

[Cael]

The whole "Casters are gods and better than other classes" attitude is overrated. They are more powerful, but only when they have spell slots. Most games are low-level, where the Wizard only has a few spell slots. The balance of the game assumes that there will be multiple encounters in-between resting and regaining spells, so if you blow your load all in one encounter, you're going to relegated to firing a crossbow in the back. In my experience, many DM's don't stress casters enough and instead let them regain spell slots between sessions or encounters. By contrast, Fighters can keep swinging that sword forever.

There is also the idea of pre-buffing which is usually only realistic for exploring with spells that are at least 10/min level. It's rare to have a situation where you'll be able to cast multiple spells right before a battle, like some kind of video game.

Finally, casters are dependent on martial characters to take down all those bad guys they just disabled with Grease/Stinking Cloud/Web/Hideous Laughter ect. The blaster Wizard isn't that great in 3.5 and you'd be wasting precious spell slots with Magic Missiles.

Casters aren't as powerful as people make them out to be, and the nerfs they got in 5th ed and Pathfinder 2e are unwarranted.

That attitude is the result of dramaqueens wanting their crippled Str 9, Int 8, Cha 6 fighter to shine and then throwing a temper tantrum when they can't be the centre of attention.

 

[The Avatar]

That attitude is the result of dramaqueens wanting their crippled Str 9, Int 8, Cha 6 fighter to shine and then throwing a temper tantrum when they can't be the centre of attention.

That's a separate issue. Casters can just as easily be made to suck. Try filling your slots with Magic Missle at first level. It's actually a common trap for people new to the game who play Wizards. The "Wizards are better" attitude is more likely the result of people in charop forums making tier lists and these obscene builds that would never work in a real game- and now the designers of 5e and pathfinder 2e felt they needed to put a stop to all that. If they would have just shup up, nobody would be complaining about Wizards. I don't remember people complaining about Wizards in the 2nd edition days.

 

[Cael]

That attitude is the result of dramaqueens wanting their crippled Str 9, Int 8, Cha 6 fighter to shine and then throwing a temper tantrum when they can't be the centre of attention.

That's a separate issue. Casters can just as easily be made to suck. Try filling your slots with Magic Missle at first level. It's actually a common trap for people new to the game who play Wizards. The "Wizards are better" attitude is more likely the result of people in charop forums making tier lists and these obscene builds that would never work in a real game- and now the designers of 5e and pathfinder 2e felt they needed to put a stop to all that. If they would have just shup up, nobody would be complaining about Wizards. I don't remember people complaining about Wizards in the 2nd edition days.

Those very people you mentioned are the same demented people I was talking about. I should know. I was one of the guys of the 3.5 CharOp boards in the old WotC forum and meet the "but the PC should be an every day peasant bloke!" crowd constantly.

 

[laclongquan]

these obscene builds that would never work in a real game.

These~ The dorks are everywhere, waving their armchair builds and insist they are great at level 20/30.

Obviously, playing that kind of build in the first 19/29 levels is a complete shitty experience, but that's not their problem. They would never be able to play that way in the first place.

 

[Nathaniel3W]

They are more powerful, but only when they have spell slots. Most games are low-level, where the Wizard only has a few spell slots. The balance of the game assumes that there will be multiple encounters in-between resting and regaining spells, so if you blow your load all in one encounter, you're going to relegated to firing a crossbow in the back.

As soon as your mage gets the Craft Wand feat, spell slots are meaningless. Until then, all you have to do is take an 8-hour break after every encounter.

 

[Cael]

They are more powerful, but only when they have spell slots. Most games are low-level, where the Wizard only has a few spell slots. The balance of the game assumes that there will be multiple encounters in-between resting and regaining spells, so if you blow your load all in one encounter, you're going to relegated to firing a crossbow in the back.

As soon as your mage gets the Craft Wand feat, spell slots are meaningless. Until then, all you have to do is take an 8-hour break after every encounter.

That you think that is a good idea is not good advertisement for your games.

 

[DavidBVal]

They are more powerful, but only when they have spell slots. Most games are low-level, where the Wizard only has a few spell slots. The balance of the game assumes that there will be multiple encounters in-between resting and regaining spells, so if you blow your load all in one encounter, you're going to relegated to firing a crossbow in the back.

As soon as your mage gets the Craft Wand feat, spell slots are meaningless. Until then, all you have to do is take an 8-hour break after every encounter.

That you think that is a good idea is not good advertisement for your games.

I am pretty sure Nathaniel3W mentions that to criticize the power and versatility granted by wands, not to endorse it.

If it's the players who decide if they have 8 hours between encounters, you have a problem. I'd say in a typical adventure, for instance exploring a dungeon, players face 4-6 encounters.

And really, I don't get the problem with wands.

A level 8 wizard crafts a caster-level 8 wand. That's 18,000 gold (2/3rds of his recommended gear worth!) and 720 XP. He also spends 18 days at it. I don't know about other DM's, but when I run a game the players don't have 18 days to just fool around; if I give them weeks to spare because I'm running some kind of sandbox-like campaign, I sure will give them stuff to do with that time, namely explore or advance the plot, and probably punish them if they don't. Imagine the wizard decides to stay home and craft a fireball wand; in the meantime the rest of the party can play a whole adventure and earn a couple levels plus gain items, including maybe a wand!

So in most circumstances, crafting wands is an in-between-adventures thing, and the way I see it, it's mostly an NPC feat to explain how magic items exist in the world. Of course if you give the players millions of gold and they control the flow of time in your game, it can cause imbalances. But the problem ain't in the feat itself.

Not to mention in the end UMD is available to everyone, and with a 20DC any character can use any wand spending mere skill points, instead of a valuable feat.

And comeon, if somehow the players end up having a fireball wand you *know* the DM is gonna find a way to neutralize it in some encounters, somehow. Fire Mephits! and now goblin ninjas appearing around you! Surprise!

Also... don't you guys force your players' characters to sometimes skip sleep for days, or make them lose their gear for a while, or gets items stolen?

Sometimes I get the feeling people is running their games as if this was a cRPG, but this is the Gazebo, remember the DM is there to make sure the game remains fun and interesting for everyone. Your mage invests a feat and gold and XP to create a Grease wand? it's your job to make sure the utility he gets out of it more or less matches what he spent, if he figures out a way to "break" your campaign, then you fix it. Of course you must reward good ideas and sometimes a very creative spellcaster can solve a whole encounter, but if it happens all the time you need to work harder.

 

[Nathaniel3W]

That you think that is a good idea is not good advertisement for your games.

Nobody said it was a good idea. I brought it up as evidence to show The Avatar that spell slots aren't as limiting as he thinks they are.

DavidBVal yeah, creating magic items should normally be a between-adventures activity, unless the adventure calls for lots of travel by ship, or otherwise waiting around. But a wand gives you 50 (!!!) spell uses. By the time a wizard casts fireball 50 times, he should have killed enough enemies to go up at least a couple of levels. And the XP price of creating the wand isn't really a deterrent. It guarantees he stays a level below his companions. That way he gets more XP for the adventure, which he can use to create more magic items. And what else is the wizard going to use his gold for? It's not like he would ever use a magic sword or anything.

And actually, I don't like taking items away from characters. That way you have to rework character sheets, and it's all a big hassle. Also, when the players get new equipment, they'll be excited to use it.

Your mage invests a feat and gold and XP to create a Grease wand? it's your job to make sure the utility he gets out of it more or less matches what he spent

Exactly. And if a wand represents 2/3rds of his gear, then he should be allowed to use it as much as the fighter or paladin use 2/3rds of their gear--as necessary to the wizard as a sword and shield are to the fighter.

 

[Cael]

They are more powerful, but only when they have spell slots. Most games are low-level, where the Wizard only has a few spell slots. The balance of the game assumes that there will be multiple encounters in-between resting and regaining spells, so if you blow your load all in one encounter, you're going to relegated to firing a crossbow in the back.

As soon as your mage gets the Craft Wand feat, spell slots are meaningless. Until then, all you have to do is take an 8-hour break after every encounter.

That you think that is a good idea is not good advertisement for your games.

I am pretty sure Nathaniel3W mentions that to criticize the power and versatility granted by wands, not to endorse it.

If it's the players who decide if they have 8 hours between encounters, you have a problem. I'd say in a typical adventure, for instance exploring a dungeon, players face 4-6 encounters.

And really, I don't get the problem with wands.

A level 8 wizard crafts a caster-level 8 wand. That's 18,000 gold (2/3rds of his recommended gear worth!) and 720 XP. He also spends 18 days at it. I don't know about other DM's, but when I run a game the players don't have 18 days to just fool around; if I give them weeks to spare because I'm running some kind of sandbox-like campaign, I sure will give them stuff to do with that time, namely explore or advance the plot, and probably punish them if they don't. Imagine the wizard decides to stay home and craft a fireball wand; in the meantime the rest of the party can play a whole adventure and earn a couple levels plus gain items, including maybe a wand!

So in most circumstances, crafting wands is an in-between-adventures thing, and the way I see it, it's mostly an NPC feat to explain how magic items exist in the world. Of course if you give the players millions of gold and they control the flow of time in your game, it can cause imbalances. But the problem ain't in the feat itself.

Not to mention in the end UMD is available to everyone, and with a 20DC any character can use any wand spending mere skill points, instead of a valuable feat.

And comeon, if somehow the players end up having a fireball wand you *know* the DM is gonna find a way to neutralize it in some encounters, somehow. Fire Mephits! and now goblin ninjas appearing around you! Surprise!

Also... don't you guys force your players' characters to sometimes skip sleep for days, or make them lose their gear for a while, or gets items stolen?

Sometimes I get the feeling people is running their games as if this was a cRPG, but this is the Gazebo, remember the DM is there to make sure the game remains fun and interesting for everyone. Your mage invests a feat and gold and XP to create a Grease wand? it's your job to make sure the utility he gets out of it more or less matches what he spent, if he figures out a way to "break" your campaign, then you fix it. Of course you must reward good ideas and sometimes a very creative spellcaster can solve a whole encounter, but if it happens all the time you need to work harder.

Given that it is a computer game, it is far more likely that he is referring to the untimed nature of DnD games from Gold Box to NWN2, where you can rest after every encounter if you want with no adverse consequences.

If he is referring to a table game, then he is doubly retarded because any DM worth his salt would be stopping the 8-hour after every encounter nonsense.

Either way, his games must be barrels of stupidity if that is the kind of mindset he has.

 

[DavidBVal]

But a wand gives you 50 (!!!) spell uses. By the time a wizard casts fireball 50 times, he should have killed enough enemies to go up at least a couple of levels.

See, here's the thing. We're in The Gazebo subforum and talking tabletop. In a pen&paper RPG the players are often busy doing other stuff, like escaping and proving their innocence, infiltrating a fortress, whatever. They don't decide what they encounter, the DM does. They're not going to enter a sucession of large chambers filled with low-hp enemies for the wizard to rain napalm on. I doubt there was ever a tabletop game in which a wizard cast 50 fireballs in his whole lifetime, because the number of encounters where a given spell is useful will be limited.

Again, for the sake of argument, let's imagine we're playing a kingmaker-style sandbox game and the wizard begins travelling the land and incinerating goblin lairs without risk. Would you really grant him XP for that after the first time? why? what did he learn?

And let me point that the whole XP thing is a bit outdated. In my last 5e game I just dropped the whole thing and granted half-levels and levels each session.

And what else is the wizard going to use his gold for? It's not like he would ever use a magic sword or anything.

Mages need more gold than anyone else; according to the rules it costs 100gp/spell level to scribe a new spell on your spellbook! That means, to get 5 extra spells per level (beyond the 2 free ones), you need to spend cumulatively 500gp (L1), 1500gp (L3), 3000gp (L5) 5000gp (L7)... and very likely you'll want to have even more spells than that.

Besides that they still need improving saves, INT, CON, purchasing rare somatic components, and of course a little extra AC can mean the difference between life and death at early or mid levels. Plus there's the cool high level stuff like staffs of whatever, Ioun Stones, etc. Because a +3 spellcasting DC or a +4 to Will can be much more important than casting 50 fireballs, one day.

 

[Cael]

But a wand gives you 50 (!!!) spell uses. By the time a wizard casts fireball 50 times, he should have killed enough enemies to go up at least a couple of levels.

See, here's the thing. We're in The Gazebo subforum and talking tabletop. In a pen&paper RPG the players are often busy doing other stuff, like escaping and proving their innocence, infiltrating a fortress, whatever. They don't decide what they encounter, the DM does. They're not going to enter a sucession of large chambers filled with low-hp enemies for the wizard to rain napalm on. I doubt there was ever a tabletop game in which a wizard cast 50 fireballs in his whole lifetime, because the number of encounters where a given spell is useful will be limited.

Again, for the sake of argument, let's imagine we're playing a kingmaker-style sandbox game and the wizard begins travelling the land and incinerating goblin lairs without risk. Would you really grant him XP for that after the first time? why? what did he learn?

And let me point that the whole XP thing is a bit outdated. In my last 5e game I just dropped the whole thing and granted half-levels and levels each session.

And what else is the wizard going to use his gold for? It's not like he would ever use a magic sword or anything.

Mages need more gold than anyone else; according to the rules it costs 100gp/spell level to scribe a new spell on your spellbook! That means, to get 5 extra spells per level (beyond the 2 free ones), you need to spend cumulatively 500gp (L1), 1500gp (L3), 3000gp (L5) 5000gp (L7)... and very likely you'll want to have even more spells than that.

Besides that they still need improving saves, INT, CON, purchasing rare somatic components, and of course a little extra AC can mean the difference between life and death at early or mid levels. Plus there's the cool high level stuff like staffs of whatever, Ioun Stones, etc. Because a +3 spellcasting DC or a +4 to Will can be much more important than casting 50 fireballs, one day.

Casting 50x 5d6 fireballs. Which at any level more than 6 or so is a complete waste of a turn.

 

[Dayyālu]

This is still going on?

I'm quite puzzled on what exactly are you people discussing. Is playing a generic "caster" technically more powerful and more varied than playing your stock two-handed martial? Of course it is. It's inbuilt in 3.x derivatives. You take it and run with it. It's similar to the fact that the entire combat system of 3.x starts collapsing as you advance in levels (AC, saves, hit dice, everything becomes more "gamey" and improvised from a starting point that mimics simulationists approaches). Doesn't help that the systems built to give martials """"variety""""" (Combat Maneuvers) aren't that hot either.

Personally, I've never found high level 3.5 combat particularly fun, and I've never managed to take a campaign over the 15 level limit. People simply grow bored or the system becomes messy.

You can endlessly debate if casters are theoretically power powerful than martials in a "ideal arena" situation: a caster, given time, can break many encounters and trivialize many problems you can throw at your players. Given time, of course. Everything else is dependant on module/DM skill/player skill etc.etc.

And let me point that the whole XP thing is a bit outdated. In my last 5e game I just dropped the whole thing and granted half-levels and levels each session.

Not the only one, level-ups at specific points makes your job so much easier. I too tried this one in my ongoing campaign, and it's working fine. Still haven't had to manage the problem of xp costs for stuff, tho.

 

[TigerKnee]

The funny thing to me about this current attempt to disprove Caster Superiority is that people are using Wizard as the baseline when the general examples of how bonkers Casters are is the Cleric and Druid (the latter's animal companion likely rivals all but the most optimized fighters to solve the "well you need someone to kill all those sleeping monsters, right?")