Annoying Game Questions You Want Answered

[Emerald]

A character on the ethereal picks up a sword with ghost touch that's on the material, but it doesn't matter, because they can't attack anyone on the material.

An Ethereal character can't pick up a ghost touch weapon on the Material, because the property only affects incorporeal creatures, not Ethereal ones. Naming the property after ghosts wasn't super intuitive because ghosts are Ethereal creatures that can manifest as incorporeal whereas other incorporeal undead are incorporeal full-time, so it's easy to mix those two states up.

[Jason]

Eh. 3.5 is still the best fantasy superhero system I've seen. Everything else is either a larger clusterfuck (Exalted), doesn't follow the powerlevel (every other D&D edition), or isn't fantasy-focused by default (GURPS).

That may very well be the case. It doesn't change the fact that the rules are a clusterfuck, though. Sure, a pile of shit at your doorstep is better than a pile of shit in your living room. It's still a pile of shit, though.

The main problem with D&D's rules is worldbuilding (or the lack thereof in regards to how magic works). They don't have any underlying logic to their magic or even their world physics. They used the "magic is mysterious" story device, which works okay in fiction but failed to realize that you can't apply this to functional rules.
The result are rules that are all over the place in how they achieve effects or even interact with physics.
You can still use those rules you just can't meaningfully extrapolate them beyond their written text.

[Username17]

It's still a pile of shit, though.

This is the kind of hipster cynicism that's supposed to sound like calloused wisdom but is actually just empty negativity. Yes, there are flaws in every game that has ever been made or which ever will be made. But that's not the same thing as saying that everything "is shit." Indeed, that kind of dismissive attitude is the enemy of progress and basically the reason that the RPG industry is in such a state of catastrophic failure at the moment.

The reality is that 3rd edition rules were great. Not just for the time period, but absolutely. That while there are laughable glitches like cauldrons that cost more than their constituent iron, for the most part the game is simply casually realistic and functional. Playing the game as-is is actually pretty reasonable for the first five levels or so. And that's more coverage than most entire games ever got including all expansion material.

When it comes to carrying capacity or the costs of goods or the effective swim speeds generated by making swim checks, it mostly checks out even under the rather intense scrutiny that it has been subjected to. Which is why all the people stroking their cocks about how spells have to be evaluated in some bizarre hyper literal partial line by partial line parody of a legal beagle are full of shit. Actually the spells mostly work pretty well within the framework of D&D magic and things follow reasonably predictable rules and frameworks. There is the occasional piece of leftover text from a previous edition that doesn't make sense in context, but these are exceptions.

There is for example only one Personal Spell in all of D&D that affects objects that become unattended and thus stop being in the remit of a "personal" spell. And despite Erik repeatedly asking for one the jackhole brigade to name it, no one ever did. So I'll tell you what it is: it's Shapechange. It's a 9th level spell, and it specifically calls out that rule as a thing it is breaking. Other personal spells don't do that. And no, you can't pretend they do or should because everything is a lava lamp of chaos and you can't really know things. Actually D&D is pretty orderly and mostly pretty well edited, and you actually can make confident statements about how things work and how new effects should be templated to produce the results you want.

You're not The Dude. And saying "Well that's just your opinion, man." isn't a mic drop, it's a concession.

-Username17

[deaddmwalking]

There is for example only one Personal Spell in all of D&D that affects objects that become unattended and thus stop being in the remit of a "personal" spell. And despite Erik repeatedly asking for one the jackhole brigade to name it, no one ever did. So I'll tell you what it is: it's Shapechange.

Hey Frank, you just ignored two pages of conversation.

My internet keeps shitting out, so I'll make it quick. A legit counter-example would be something that explicitly states that an item can become an unattended object and still remain affected by a personal spell. So, Shapechange. It explicitly states that separated equipment and body parts do not revert to original form. Much better counter-example than Giant Size. It is a 9th level spell on par with magnets and shit, so maybe it could break the rules, but there it is.

I'd forgotten about Shapechange but kept working down the list til I got one. So that's enough that I'm open to considering that personal spells can sometimes affect unattended objects afterward. It's sloppy rules writing that they qualified several spells but left some up in the air.

Edit - I think it's also worth mentioning since you mentioned this spell previously as 'something that doesn't help your cause' that the reversion of pieces of the body separated from the whole is inherited from alter self. The description of Shapechange does have a reference to polymorph which has a reference to alter self - and alter self specifically states:

Any part of the body or piece of equipment that is separated from the whole reverts to its true form.

Shapechange needed specific language to counter the restriction imposed by a spell that it also specifically referenced. As I mentioned previously, it is very common for a spell to say 'this spell works like x except'. It's also common for relevant language to be repeated. If giant size had intended to include restrictions from enlarge person it could have said 'this spell works like enlarge person except' or it could have included the same language the way righteous might did.

I'm no nihilist and I think there is an underlying logic to 3.x - it's just not a consistent metaphysics. Fire is hot and not-hot at the same time in the same place because they tried very hard to control the unintended abuse of magic. They have spells like magic weapon so they don't want magic fang to generate hundreds of magic weapons. It's not just about logic in the game world - it's also about balance.

For spells like polymorph, the consequences of allowing substances created to persist is primarily around the use of poisons in other forms and related potential wealth by level abuses.

[virgil]

My party is level 12 and consists of the following, all with a little over 100kgp each in gear:
[*] Arcanist: Essentially a sorcerer with a spellbook. His spells prepared is evocation-heavy (his favorite is a 3rd level fireball that does force damage)
[*] Cleric: Group healing specialization
[*] Oracle: Took a couple levels of rage prophet, he hits like a truck
[*] Psychic: Basically a divination-themed sorcerer
[*] Werebear: Technically a were-dire polar bear with 11 levels of a custom class that gives short range teleportation, fear aura, and shadow manipulation

What is a safe level for the BBEG of my next adventure? I was thinking a Tome Soul Merchant, but the question is whether to go with caster level 14 through 16 (7th or 8th level spells)

[RobbyPants]

My party is level 12 and consists of the following, all with a little over 100kgp each in gear:
[*] Arcanist: Essentially a sorcerer with a spellbook. His spells prepared is evocation-heavy (his favorite is a 3rd level fireball that does force damage)
[*] Cleric: Group healing specialization
[*] Oracle: Took a couple levels of rage prophet, he hits like a truck
[*] Psychic: Basically a divination-themed sorcerer
[*] Werebear: Technically a were-dire polar bear with 11 levels of a custom class that gives short range teleportation, fear aura, and shadow manipulation

What is a safe level for the BBEG of my next adventure? I was thinking a Tome Soul Merchant, but the question is whether to go with caster level 14 through 16 (7th or 8th level spells)

If the CR system means anything (which it doesn't), two levels higher should be a pretty solid challenge, and four levels higher should be an even match, which would imply a 50% chance of TPK. Now, that's calibrated (not really) against a party of four PCs, and you have five.

Of course, when it comes down to 5 PCs vs 1 BBEG, you're running into action economy issues, and this strongly favors the five actions of the PCs vs the one of the BBEG. Also, high level fights tend to be initiative contests.

I think you'd probably be best going two levels higher, and throwing in some slightly lower level helpers (maybe two that are 10th level or four that are 8th) to help with action economy.

[Jason]

This is the kind of hipster cynicism that's supposed to sound like calloused wisdom but is actually just empty negativity. Yes, there are flaws in every game that has ever been made or which ever will be made. But that's not the same thing as saying that everything "is shit."

Learn to read metaphors, Frank. It's alluding to the arguments along the lines of "but it's better than X" or even "But it's the best at X". Those are relative statements, not objective ones. 3.5 wasn't a holy grail either and I am fairly confident you're willing to agree on that.
Is it utterly broekn beyond belief? It is not worth playing, not worth paying for? Certainly not. I got my fair bit of entertainment and joy out of it. Actually out of all the D&D editions.

That doesn't mean I played them for the rules, though and it doesn't mean the rules are good, either.

The reality is that 3rd edition rules were great.

Oh is that why we've been arguing about the rules of two spells for several pages, now?

[Ignimortis]

The reality is that 3rd edition rules were great.

Oh is that why we've been arguing about the rules of two spells for several pages, now?

For a very specific situation, created by a single spell. The core rules, which is to say, things that aren't classes, feats or spells, are great. Skills, the BAB idea, the saving throws, etc. Still the best among D&D's versions of these things.

[maglag]

The reality is that 3rd edition rules were great.

Oh is that why we've been arguing about the rules of two spells for several pages, now?

For a very specific situation, created by a single spell. The core rules, which is to say, things that aren't classes, feats or spells, are great. Skills, the BAB idea, the saving throws, etc. Still the best among D&D's versions of these things.

Really? Those are the things you pick as the best designed bits of 3.X?

3.X Skills-Craft(basketweaving) costs as much as Use Magic Device. Diplomacy wins everything. Glibness grants a whooping +30 to Bluff. Spot rules means you can't see anything that isn't pretty close. Concentration meant that casters could still cast with no problem with a sword pointed at their face. Stealthing demands two skills and is easily defeated by a lot of magics or even just a dog's scent. I could go on.

3.X Bab-You need to stand still to full attack, iteratives take cumulative -5 to attack rolls so your fourth attack is taking a whooping -15 and is thus basically useless against relevant enemies.

3.X Saving throws-Good saves scale faster than bad ones and you can't really afford to pump all their related stats so at mid-high levels you're making your good saves on a natural 2+ and you'll need a natural 20 to make your bad saves.

[Ignimortis]

Oh is that why we've been arguing about the rules of two spells for several pages, now?

For a very specific situation, created by a single spell. The core rules, which is to say, things that aren't classes, feats or spells, are great. Skills, the BAB idea, the saving throws, etc. Still the best among D&D's versions of these things.

Really? Those are the things you pick as the best designed bits of 3.X?

3.X Skills-Craft(basketweaving) costs as much as Use Magic Device. Diplomacy wins everything. Glibness grants a whooping +30 to Bluff. Spot rules means you can't see anything that isn't pretty close. Concentration meant that casters could still cast with no problem with a sword pointed at their face. Stealthing demands two skills and is easily defeated by a lot of magics or even just a dog's scent. I could go on.

3.X Bab-You need to stand still to full attack, iteratives take cumulative -5 to attack rolls so your fourth attack is taking a whooping -15 and is thus basically useless against relevant enemies.

3.X Saving throws-Good saves scale faster than bad ones and you can't really afford to pump all their related stats so at mid-high levels you're making your good saves on a natural 2+ and you'll need a natural 20 to make your bad saves.

Skills being beaten by magic is the problem in part due to magic being fucking broken. However, compared to any other edition of D&D, skills a) were there b) worked properly for NPCs and PCs alike. They were written well enough to simulate worldbuilding and help in character building by concept ("I want a character who can jump this high, how much of a boost do I need?"). All of your examples are demonstrating not how skills were badly written, but how OP magic was.

Diplomacy as written is bad, though.

BAB was good in the sense that it clearly delineated the design of "good at fighting, bad at fighting", unlike anything post-3.5. Look at 5e - a wizard can be as good with a sword as a fighter, because they both have proficiency and their relevant stat is the same. Their ray spells use their spellcasting mod, because somehow aiming shit at people isn't dependent on Dexterity anymore. Somehow WotC never invented the other side of BAB, which would add to your defenses as you got better at fighting.

Saving Throws never got better than 3.5 did, either. And you're exaggerating quite a bit - at mid-high levels the difference between my good save and my bad save was usually about 4-6 points. The actual problem is the distribution for classes.

3.5 did a lot of things wrong, but most of these pertain to how bad the class design in core is at the extreme ends of the scale - both Wizards/Clerics/Druids and Fighters/Rangers/Paladins/Monks are shit design. But at least 3.5 had supplements with actually good and relatively well-designed classes. Like Beguiler, Dread Necromancer, Warblade and Warlock.

[deaddmwalking]

'Best' is a subjective term. In my personal opinion, 3rd edition is clearly the 'best'. It does a lot of things right and is superior to other editions of D&D. Like any major update, you have to take risks. Some of them are going to pay off and some of them are not. The things that 3rd edition got right tend to be overlooked because nobody has even suggested a change to them - they're taken as default. Roll high, death of THAC0, etc are so clearly superior that everybody just does them and they don't credit 3rd edition because they seem so obvious.

At levels 3-9, 3rd edition is particularly good. The issues with divergent classes (linear fighters/quadratic wizards) tends not to be a major issue. The game does what it was supposed to do, and does it well. Most of the issues were introduced with supplement bloat - some of the popular features were 'too conservative' and 3rd edition needed to outgrow some of the restrictions. For example, there are thousands of feats. Most characters could expect 7 if they played through 20th level; most would never get past 12th. Too many feats never got used - there was a lot of ink wasted on abilities that people WANTED but couldn't have. An improvement of 3rd edition would have allowed people access to more feats - not less.

In any edition there can be disagreement about the rules. 3rd edition is much more organized and clearly written then prior editions and finding a consensus answer is much easier. The inclusion of an SRD was a major upgrade.

I'm sorry you don't like the game. Some people won't. Some people don't like RPGs at all and some people are looking for other things in RPGs. As far as my opinion, 3rd edition (and variations) are clearly the best 'official' D&D.

[Mord]

There is a huge difference between "3e is the best RPG in its genre" and "3e is the best possible RPG in its genre."

3e provided a framework where you could actually compare stuff against each other, which was a paradigm shift for RPGs. Let's not forget or underestimate the fact that having things like "progressions" with "math" that you could meaningfully talk about was an innovation in the field. The idea that an encounter could or should be built to the party level with an expectation of difficulty, instead of being a roll of XdY on a fucking table, with each monster having a quantifiable difficulty level that contributed to a quantifiable overall encounter strength, was groundbreaking - even though the implementation fell short.

Now, you can and should criticize the specific implementations of classes, skills, and especially magic. Many spells are legacy garbage that got ported into the hot new system rather than being meaningfully redesigned to make sense in the new system. Spell lists, caster levels, UMD; magic in general was badly implemented from top to bottom, and if there had ever been a real inheritor to 3e that built meaningfully on the solid foundation it provided, it would have reimagined that whole situation on a fundamental level.

Unfortunately no one has yet provided that. 3.5e, PF1, and 5e are all built on the skeleton of 3e, but none of them really dared to change the body plan.

[maglag]

Skills being beaten by magic is the problem in part due to magic being fucking broken. However, compared to any other edition of D&D, skills a) were there b) worked properly for NPCs and PCs alike. They were written well enough to simulate worldbuilding and help in character building by concept ("I want a character who can jump this high, how much of a boost do I need?"). All of your examples are demonstrating not how skills were badly written, but how OP magic was.

Eeerr, no. That was only one of my examples for skills. To reiterate:

Skills are wildly unbalanced between themselves. Something like Use Magic Device is super powerful while Craft (basketweaving) is basically useless.

Spot taking a -2 penalty per 10 feet meaning at 100 feet things start being impossible to see. And even if you get some ungodly modifier, even in open plains spot is capped at 6d6x40 feet, so you can never spot the titan approaching from the far horizon.

BAB was good in the sense that it clearly delineated the design of "good at fighting, bad at fighting", unlike anything post-3.5. Look at 5e - a wizard can be as good with a sword as a fighter, because they both have proficiency and their relevant stat is the same.

So what? Gandalf was pretty good with swords. Harry and Neville kill unique enemies with swording too. Wizards being good with swords is a staple of fantasy accross the ages, and if anything in 3.X a wizard could easily become better at swording than the fighter at melee if they wanted while the fighter has to beg the wizard for buffs if they want to have a chance against the monsters past low levels.

Their ray spells use their spellcasting mod, because somehow aiming shit at people isn't dependent on Dexterity anymore. Somehow WotC never invented the other side of BAB, which would add to your defenses as you got better at fighting.

At least they removed the retarded touch AC rules from following editions so that casters aren't hitting their rays/orbs in a 2+ anymore.

Saving Throws never got better than 3.5 did, either. And you're exaggerating quite a bit - at mid-high levels the difference between my good save and my bad save was usually about 4-6 points. The actual problem is the distribution for classes.

That's only because you already have experience and are certainly shoring up the holes with magic.

Plus it wasn't any better for the monsters, like a purple worm has a whooping +4 to will in contrast to +17 to fort, a whooping 13 points difference.

3.5 did a lot of things wrong, but most of these pertain to how bad the class design in core is at the extreme ends of the scale - both Wizards/Clerics/Druids and Fighters/Rangers/Paladins/Monks are shit design. But at least 3.5 had supplements with actually good and relatively well-designed classes. Like Beguiler, Dread Necromancer, Warblade and Warlock.

Or you could do like 5e and actually include the Warlock in the core rulebook instead of forcing people to spend hundreds of bucks in paper DLC that will break your back carrying around.

[deaddmwalking]

Maglag: Stop liking what I don't like!

Eeerr, no. That was only one of my examples for skills. To reiterate:

Skills are wildly unbalanced between themselves. Something like Use Magic Device is super powerful while Craft (basketweaving) is basically useless.

...

Spot taking a -2 penalty per 10 feet meaning at 100 feet things start being impossible to see. And even if you get some ungodly modifier, even in open plains spot is capped at 6d6x40 feet, so you can never spot the titan approaching from the far horizon.

You're generally full of shit, but I'm only going to respond to this one point.
In the 1st edition DMG (the one with the Ifrit on the cover) the Encounter Distance during outdoor adventures was 6d4" (4-24) and was reduced by the surprise roll. For reasons, each inch corresponds to a yard outdoors. So the maximum encounter distance was 24 yards (72').

3rd edition didn't fix everything.

But it didn't create all the problems, either.

The biggest failure in 3rd edition compared to previous editions was the lack of Morale rules. Too many monsters fight to the death.

But encounter distance isn't a 3rd edition problem, and you're an idiot to claim it is.

[Ignimortis]

Eeerr, no. That was only one of my examples for skills. To reiterate:

Skills are wildly unbalanced between themselves. Something like Use Magic Device is super powerful while Craft (basketweaving) is basically useless.

Spot taking a -2 penalty per 10 feet meaning at 100 feet things start being impossible to see. And even if you get some ungodly modifier, even in open plains spot is capped at 6d6x40 feet, so you can never spot the titan approaching from the far horizon.

So UMD isn't the king of skills jest because magic is OP and the ability to use it even second-hand outshines everything else?

Spot is used to detect things that are hidden or actively hiding, so the Titan example doesn't quite cut it - if it's actually striding like that, you don't need a Spot check to see it.

So what? Gandalf was pretty good with swords. Harry and Neville kill unique enemies with swording too. Wizards being good with swords is a staple of fantasy across the ages, and if anything in 3.X a wizard could easily become better at swording than the fighter at melee if they wanted while the fighter has to beg the wizard for buffs if they want to have a chance against the monsters past low levels.

Gandalf is a DMPC of epic level in a world where no protagonist ever gets to level 10. Harry and Neville kill the unique enemies not because they're good with swords, but because their enemies are constrained by circumstance or aren't really good at defending themselves - hell, the Basilisk is blinded by the time Harry kills it, and it still almost killed him in return. Nagini was just a large snake that didn't even have any physical defense buffs on it.

And the fact that wizards can buff themselves to become better fighters than actual fighters is the problem with 3.5, but it's certainly not related to the fact that, I dunno, magic is broken and fighters are severely underpowered?

At least they removed the retarded touch AC rules from following editions so that casters aren't hitting their rays/orbs in a 2+ anymore.

Sure, if you're aiming for the large clumsy monsters who rely on their natural armor to survive. Dodgy bastards will have casters miss those spells on a 10, and quite possibly on a 15 too, since their attack bonus with rays is around +7 at level 9-10, and quite a few monsters have Touch ACs higher than that.

That's only because you already have experience and are certainly shoring up the holes with magic.

Plus it wasn't any better for the monsters, like a purple worm has a whooping +4 to will in contrast to +17 to fort, a whooping 13 points difference.

That's called WBL. And Purple Worm is a dumb melee beatstick, so of course it has an abysmal Will save and a good Fort save. Not sure how any other edition would do that differently.

Or you could do like 5e and actually include the Warlock in the core rulebook instead of forcing people to spend hundreds of bucks in paper DLC that will break your back carrying around.

What you should've said is "actually ruin the Warlock by murdering its' schtick of "unlimited specific spells" and turning it into something that only functions properly if you can take 2+ short rests (hour long breaks) in your adventuring day". Which is often impossible, and thus that paradigm reduces you to being an Eldritch Blast spammer, because you ran out of your whole 2-3 spells two fights ago.

5e didn't fix anything wrong with 3.5, because to do that you'd have to actually change the game in ways that weren't just cutting down on rules. The whole idea that all martial character are reliant on autoattacks needs to go, as well as having a class as non-specific as a "Fighter" or "Wizard".

Nobody actually needs a generalist wizard who can learn and use any spell as their character class. Have a chosen school or two, and maybe very few handpicked spells from others - like every 3 levels you get a non-specialist spell that can be from your otherwise forbidden schools. Same with Clerics - you get, say, 4 domains per god, and each domain gives you 2-3 spells per spell level to choose from. That's it. No god that doesn't do anything with the undead gives you Animate Dead. No god that doesn't have Knowledge in their portfolio gives you Scrying. Druids get fixed domains as per their alignment and nature focus, which is compensated by Wild Shape being so damn useful even without being able to cast in it (Natural Spell can go to hell).

But WotC is too scared to kill off sacred cows for the sake of making progress, and thus tries to change the game to suit that "Wizard/Fighter/Cleric/THief" paradigm, which still falls apart at level 11, when the Fighter is almost useless against half the enemies without a Fly spell and the Rogue does things less efficiently than a 5th level spell slot.

[Pariah Dog]

5e didn't fix anything wrong with 3.5, because to do that you'd have to actually change the game in ways that weren't just cutting down on rules. The whole idea that all martial character are reliant on autoattacks needs to go, as well as having a class as non-specific as a "Fighter" or "Wizard".

They (half-assedly) tried that in 4e and I can recall the 3.5 diehards I used to roll with had a collective reaction of:

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
(Screaming Pepe the Frog meme not available to maintain article 13 compliance)

So if by some fit of insanity Mike Mearls was banished to the elemental plane of perpetual unemployment and they replaced him some folks from here, the DnD fanbase would (nerd)rage so hard at seeing those kinds of changes.

[Username17]

4e didn't fail because it was too big a change, it failed because it was a bad game where you couldn't really do anything. People were willing to try out their Skill Challenge thing, it failed because the entire subsystem was a kaleidoscope of failure that did not meet any of its design goals and was awful to try to play with.

The reality is that the changes of 4e were no more drastic than 3e jettisoning THAC0 or allowing Dwarves to be Wizards or scrapping the Class XP charts. They were just bad changes instead of good changes so the game was rejected instead of embraced. 3e was a massive overhaul of the game that burned down a lot of supposedly sacred cows and people fucking loved it.

While there are definitely grognards who fear change and rant on the internet and shit, they really aren't a meaningful impediment to actual progress. If 4e had been the glorious modernist design that the 4vengers told us it was, we would have embraced it and the game line wouldn't have been cancelled.

-Username17

[Pariah Dog]

4E has a slew of other problems, yes (skills for example) but during the hype phase I was excited about that notion (I thought fighters were being moved up closer to wizard's levels rather than the wizard being pulled down).

There was enough of a grognardian backlash that WotC put out Essentials, which IIRC backpedaled a bit and told fighters to sit the fuck down and go back to spamming auto attacks and let real classes have abilities.

3.5 style has persisted so well IMO because of the editions out there it's skill system is (mostly) functional and you really do need a working skill system for interactions outside the combat minigame.

[Jason]

The core rules, which is to say, things that aren't classes, feats or spells, are great. Skills, the BAB idea, the saving throws, etc. Still the best among D&D's versions of these things.

Skills:
- The Perform skill is an atrocity in and off itself. It's a fluff skill, only mechaniczed for a single class, forcing players to dump precious skill points into a pure fluff skill, if they want to play any character with even a semblance to, for example, asian heroes, playing a bamboo flute or other instrument)
- Splitting Hide and Move Silently is utterly pointless and nothing but a skill point sink.
- Same holds true for Spot and Listen.

That's by no means the end of the list of problems with skills in 3.X but those are the ones I remember even after not playing the game for more than a decade!

BAB:
A neat Idea, granted. Certainly better than the THAC0 of previous Editions. BUt it's not without ist own share of Problems. Nevertheless, it's probably still one of the strongest points of 3.X.

Saving Throws:

I honmestly far prefer the Defenses of 4e. It's a more natural flow, but either works for me. It does have ist own issues, though, especially with how easy they are to break (particularly on SoD effects).

So I am sorry to say I disagree with you. The three aspects you chose to validate yur argument are not "great". They range from atrocious to merely okay.

However, compared to any other edition of D&D, skills a) were there b) worked properly for NPCs and PCs alike.

That is not a valid argument. Being "better than X" does not make it objectively "great".

[Ignimortis]

Skills:
- The Perform skill is an atrocity in and off itself. It's a fluff skill, only mechaniczed for a single class, forcing players to dump precious skill points into a pure fluff skill, if they want to play any character with even a semblance to, for example, asian heroes, playing a bamboo flute or other instrument)
- Splitting Hide and Move Silently is utterly pointless and nothing but a skill point sink.
- Same holds true for Spot and Listen.

That's by no means the end of the list of problems with skills in 3.X but those are the ones I remember even after not playing the game for more than a decade!

Oh, I do agree that some skills could be merged. But to be fair, this is the first iteration of skills working like that in D&D. Pathfinder did the obvious thing and merged Hide/Move Silently and some other skills, and I'd do the same if I attempted a 3.5 rewrite.

There's nothing bad in fluff skills by themselves. If your character has enough skill points to do the mechanical stuff (which are mostly Tumble, UMD, Concentration, various Knowledges/Spellcraft, far from all of them), you can sink some points into using Perform and Craft (basketweaving). And there are examples of how to use Perform even as a non-bard. It's actually the only skill that explicitly allows you to make money for using it, although in very miniscule amounts.

However, compared to any other edition of D&D, skills a) were there b) worked properly for NPCs and PCs alike.

That is not a valid argument. Being "better than X" does not make it objectively "great".

I never said they were objectively great. They could use improvement, but every single damn system could, I've never seen a perfect one. What I've said is that 3.5 is a) the best version of D&D released thus far, b) the best fantasy superhero system I know; even with its' non-negligible share of problems.

So they're the best we've got, and that alone is damning enough, because 3e was released 18 years ago and supposedly should've died 10 years ago, but it's still far more popular than 4e ever managed and actually spawned an offshoot just because of how loved it was and still is. I'd like to say that it's more popular than 5e, but it's not. 3.5 is still a better game than 5e, though, it's just that 5e is the new hot thing and thus everyone new to the hobby goes for it.

[Jason]

Oh, I do agree that some skills could be merged. But to be fair, this is the first iteration of skills working like that in D&D. Pathfinder did the obvious thing and merged Hide/Move Silently and some other skills, and I'd do the same if I attempted a 3.5 rewrite.

Good, then on this we are in agreement.

There's nothing bad in fluff skills by themselves. If your character has enough skill points to do the mechanical stuff (which are mostly Tumble, UMD, Concentration, various Knowledges/Spellcraft, far from all of them), you can sink some points into using Perform and Craft (basketweaving).

And that's exactly the problem with 3.X skills. Fighters getting 2 + Int modifier is ridiculous. Only the Rogue and Ranger get somewhat decent skills (and the wizard by Int proxy, I guess) and both of them have to sink the majority of them back into class relevant skills (Hide, Move Silently, Spot, Listen, Thievery. etc.). So, rather than giving classes class specific abilities they hid it under the pretense of freedom of choice with their ridiculous skill system.
Add to that the ability modifiers and it's pretty clear that fighters won't Spot or Listen to anything and hardly be a decent sneak. So they need to dump skill points in abilities they can't compete with, yet they are barred from abilities like "Backstab" or "Sneak Attack" because of class restrictions. It's a mess.

I never said they were objectively great.

You said:

.... things that aren't classes, feats or spells, are great.

But if that's not what you meant then there's no point for me to further argue about it. I'll let it slide.

What I've said is that 3.5 is a) the best version of D&D released thus far, b) the best fantasy superhero system I know; even with its' non-negligible share of problems.

I'm not going to argue personal taste or preference.

So they're the best we've got, and that alone is damning enough, because 3e was released 18 years ago and supposedly should've died 10 years ago, but it's still far more popular than 4e ever managed and actually spawned an offshoot just because of how loved it was and still is.

It's still bad, though. Don't get me wrong, I like it. I played it for ages. But it's not the messiah of fantasy rules systems. It's not even the messiah of fantasy superpower systems. It's just better than its competition in a lot of aspects and worse in some others. Whether that makes the system better for your purposes is a purely subjective assessment.

[deaddmwalking]

@Jason

Yes, 3.x characters needed more skills. That's because skills were actually cool and useful, even if they were just 'fluff'. They provided a mechanical hook for an important way to distinguish your character. Your martial character that plays a flute could be just different enough from my similar martial character that didn't because you had access to something 'different'.

Skills in 3.x were a major step in the right direction compared to Non-Weapon Proficiencies (NWPs). NWPs were an optional system. Being something more than a 'fighting man' wasn't really possible if you couldn't be a sailor or handle trade negotiations.

This is just another case where 3.x moved in the right direction, but they didn't move far enough in the right direction. Increasing the number of skills that classes get and removing any cross-class penalty goes a long way toward fixing the 'problem' of 3.x skills.

When you imagine your character, and you say, 'to work, I need the following skills', and you don't have enough skills, that's not an indictment of the skill system[/i]. Clearly, 4th edition could have built on this and liberalized skill acquisition.

[Jason]

@Jason

Yes, 3.x characters needed more skills. That's because skills were actually cool and useful, even if they were just 'fluff'. They provided a mechanical hook for an important way to distinguish your character. Your martial character that plays a flute could be just different enough from my similar martial character that didn't because you had access to something 'different'.

Skills in 3.x were a major step in the right direction compared to Non-Weapon Proficiencies (NWPs). NWPs were an optional system. Being something more than a 'fighting man' wasn't really possible if you couldn't be a sailor or handle trade negotiations.

This is just another case where 3.x moved in the right direction, but they didn't move far enough in the right direction. Increasing the number of skills that classes get and removing any cross-class penalty goes a long way toward fixing the 'problem' of 3.x skills.

When you imagine your character, and you say, 'to work, I need the following skills', and you don't have enough skills, that's not an indictment of the skill system[/i]. Clearly, 4th edition could have built on this and liberalized skill acquisition.

I agree with you on almost all of those Points except the last one. It's true, just needing more skill Points is not, in itself and indictment for the skill System. The large Separation across Levels and attributes breaks it easily, though. Your Dex/Wis Ranger will fail at climbing at high levels, because he lacks Str. That pushes him into a fairly restricted set of skills he actually qualifies for in any reasonable manner ooutside of the first ten levels.

D&D is also basically three games in one. The first three levels, you're pretty much disposable. Then there are the Levels 4-11 where meaningful adventures happen and the rules actually work quite well and then there is anything beyond level 12.
Where all looking at different stages while we talk about the system and how we view it.

Is 3.X a working and satisfying System? For the most part, yes.
Is it better than any of its predecessors? Hell, yes!
Is it absolutely great in everything it does? Hell, no!

It works in some aspects and it doesn't in others. Claiming otherwise is nonsense. Now, whether the parts that work well are the parts you're looking for in an RPG that is entirely up to you.

[Emerald]

I agree with you on almost all of those Points except the last one. It's true, just needing more skill Points is not, in itself and indictment for the skill System. The large Separation across Levels and attributes breaks it easily, though. Your Dex/Wis Ranger will fail at climbing at high levels, because he lacks Str. That pushes him into a fairly restricted set of skills he actually qualifies for in any reasonable manner ooutside of the first ten levels.

It's not actually that bad. Unless you're using the Epic Level Jokebook for higher DCs, Climb maxes out at DC 30 for a ceiling with handholds but not footholds that is also slippery. Assuming 10 Str, no mitigating circumstances, and no other bonuses beyond ranks, while taking 10 he can automatically climb an average dungeon wall at 7th level and can hit that maximum DC at 17th level. Four levels before that he can climb a bit slower (occasionally failing by less than 4 to make no progress, but never falling), and he can pick up a climbing kit for +2 as well.

All told, the ranger can eventually climb any surface in the book by 11th level, with no chance of failure unless he's engaging in combat while climbing a slippery ceiling using only his hands, in which case, yeah, having a chance to fall in those circumstances is plenty reasonable.

Same goes for Perform. If you just want to have "plays a bamboo flute" as part of your backstory, you don't need ranks or a Cha bonus since you can make a "routine performance" while taking 10. Being good enough to play professionally is only DC 20, which anyone can make without any ranks or Cha; presumably the "in time" in the example text means "once you actually invest resources into Perform so you can hit DC 20 reliably."

So the problem still basically comes down to skill points. If you want to hit DC 30 reliably in secondary skills, you need to have enough skill points to cover all your main schticks and still have some left over for stuff like Appraise or Perform (Bagpipes) or whatever, but the benchmarks themselves are basically fine.

[deaddmwalking]

It's worth pointing out - skills work reasonably well at least compared to what came before. There are still problems. I don't think anyone wanted 3.x to be supported forever - rather that it be used as the basis for an improved version of the game just as 3rd edition made a number of improvements over 2nd edition.

The problems with skills provide a good example of the types of changes that were needed, but weren't handled.

First off: a rouge 1/Fighter 1 was very different from a Fighter 1/Rogue 1 in regard to skills. Not only did you have to track each skill purchase (which class it came from) the x4 bonus received at first level meant that you also had to track the order of skill purchases. Buying skills for a 16th level character that included 2 base classes and a prestige class (such as determining when they could qualify for the PC) was a major pain - it was an accounting nightmare to follow the rules correctly.

The acquisition of skill points, the class/cross-class, the x4 at 1st level all made skill points unnecessarily fiddly. How skills worked in play mostly was good. Getting more out of the skill system was a worthwhile goal. An improvement on 3.x would have kept the idea of skills and that monsters and PCs used the same skill system to reflect their capabilities; they would have streamlined the way skills are attributed and accounted and provided ways to acquire 'background' skills without sacrificing 'actual power'. Ultimately, skills weren't something that was abused by power-gaming munchkins - charm monster beats Diplomacy.