Lots of things in this game are broken. Let me write up a few examples

That article doesn't make sense in the context of a 3.5/PF discussion.
The criticisms made towards that system have nothing to do with "an inconsistency/loophole/mechanics issue with Rule X."
People just complain it's balanced poorly.

Which it isn't by rules as written, but that's irrelevant, because RAW is the incorrect way to play.

Or you can just use what you need and limit what players use to what is actually applicable to the game. Most of what people want to do can just be done with the basic set. It certainly has better designed core mechanics than most popular games, though I suppose that with OP's sentiment that is setting the bar low.

You're indulging in exactly what the OP's talking about, twisted logic to avoid having to criticise a game you like.

It honestly baffles me. I have a few games I dearly love, and I'll freely admit they have problems, some of them significant. But it's only by acknowledging and accepting the flaws we like that we can seek to improve them.

Core 3.5 is a near busted system, and the only way people make it work is ignoring and handwaving most of it. Having to not use most of the book is not a sign of a good system.

Explain what's wrong with 3.5 RAW and I'll show you why you're wrong.

I think most of 3.5's fan base are now just tired of it being brought up as a busted system in everything. Seriously, when is the last time you actually defend it? They gave up, yet still people drag it out and parade it around.

If we made a board wide deal to not bitch about it for a week, I doubt we would see one thread dedicated to it or anyone defending it. It has been over a year since I have seen it offered as a good choice for a game, even in jest.

The non-magic using classes are utterly irrelevant? It's trivial (and more importantly, easy to do by accident) to end up with a party where one or more members are completely useless while others can do everything, Wizard/Fighter is the classic but Monks and Barbarians also suck while Clerics and Druids are amazing.

And before you indulge in the 'balance doesn't matter in a co-operative game' bollocks, it does. Not in the same way as a competitive one, it can be looser, but you still want everyone able to contribute to the game on the same level. One person only being able to deal with combat, and even then not that well, while other people have almost endless utility both in and out of combat is an imbalance which makes the game a lot less fun for those left without any interesting options to make use of.

>The non-magic using classes are utterly irrelevant? It's trivial (and more importantly, easy to do by accident) to end up with a party where one or more members are completely useless while others can do everything,

How so?

The Fighter and the Druid/Bear is a classic example.

The fighters only utility is to fight good in combat. They get lots of proficiency and feats but all it really does is let them hit things in relatively dull ways, very reliant on the quality of their equipment.

Then look at a druid. They have magic out the wazoo and can do a little bit of everything- Healing, utility, combat and, particularly notably, summoning. A Druid can summon a monster that will likely be as good, if not better, than an equivalent level fighter, along with turning into one themselves if they care to. Is it not immediately obvious that one of these two has lost all relevance or ability to contribute on the same level?

>They have magic out the wazoo and can do a little bit of everything- Healing, utility, combat and,
They aren't particularly good at any of those.
Their magic is weaker then any other dedicated spell caster, they have much less utility than a wizard for example, and their damage output is far less than even a fighter.

>particularly notably, summoning. A Druid can summon a monster that will likely be as good, if not better, than an equivalent level fighter, along with turning into one themselves if they care to.
Hahahaha
Ah...
No.
A level 20 druid can summon a single CR 11 monster
A level 20 fighter would kill it, and still have attacks left over fro the druid.

>Implying iterative attacks are even worth it

You really know fuck all about 3.5

lol
Alright man, I guess a level 20 fighter with the DMG recommended 760k net worth, with a +6 composite bow, +5 enchantment, (insert extra +5 enchantment here), ring of spell turning, cloak of resistance, ect. ect. just can't do anything against a mighty druid.
Aside from putting out easily over 100 damage per round (and much more depending on the build) using 100% core RAW, and being immune to like 80% of any spell cast at him, and having a high chance of evading the rest.
Meanwhile, what can the druid do? Buy a bracer of armor and hope he doesn't lose init? (chances are he will)

You see, you're making a false assumption here. The Fighter beating a Druid in the fight doesn't mean the two are somehow balanced classes. This is still a PvE game.

Starting at level 1, the Druid is going to have more utility, and isn't going to be very far behind the Fighter in terms of combat ability. Plus, he'll have an animal companion to do the Fighter's job in early levels.

It doesn't matter how much damage and how unkillable a level 20 fighter is, since combat also isn't the entirety of the game. This isn't up for debate. People have written pages upon pages upon pages of reasons why Casters are better than Martials in 3.5. Saying otherwise is literally just bait, because nobody could actually be that retarded.

>Starting at level 1, the Druid is going to have more utility
HAHAHA
Dude, a level 1 druid has a single level 1 spell, (maybe like 2 depending on his ability scores) and has shit armor at best.

>It doesn't matter how much damage and how unkillable a level 20 fighter is, since combat also isn't the entirety of the game. This isn't up for debate.
Oh really? Let's see what you posted before.

>non-magic using classes are utterly irrelevant

The guy who carries the party and wrecks enemies is irrelevant, huh?

>People have written pages upon pages upon pages of reasons why Casters are better than Martials in 3.5. Saying otherwise is literally just bait, because nobody could actually be that retarded.
Not an argument.

Well, the Druid can cast wind wall and thus no-save remove arrows from the equation.

That's a single spell the druid has had since level 5 and can stop a level 20 fighter dead.

>The guy who carries the party and wrecks enemies is irrelevant, huh?

If he's relying on HP rather than 'Save or Die' generally yeah.

It's a lot easier to go to 'Save or die' than to deal with: Dr, AC, Miss Chance...there is a lot of steps between attack and HP damage.

>That's a single spell the druid has had since level 5 and can stop a level 20 fighter dead.
First of all, if the fighter wins initiative, it's likely to be a 1 round combat, but regardless,
that only matters if the fighter just stands there and doesn't move to a better angle.
Or doesn't also have a melee weapon.
Or doesn't have any magic item which gives him a positioning or movement affect.

>using save or die spells
>against CR 20 monsters

lol, nice joke

If the fighter has to move, he's down to only a single arrow shot. That's not exactly going to be too impressive.

Said wall is also 10ft/level long. Assuming these guys are equal level you are going to need to somehow manuver to get a shot around a 200ft long wall.

>It is possible to create cylindrical or square wind walls to enclose specific points.

lol, you know you can just run through wind wall, right?
You don't have to run around it.

I love it when people like you try to talk about the rules.

Turns out a lot of level 20 monsters have pretty fucking shit will/ref saves if they are big brutes or mediocre fort saves if they are cunning spellcasters. The advantage of spells i that you don't need to go for the strongest save, you can go for the weakest.

Or just shove someone in a no-save forcecage. There isn't much a fighter can do to deal with that in 3.5

So you are assuming that you are starting at both 'Long enough distance to use a bow safely' but also 'Short enough distance to charge if the bow fails'.

Druids have innate access to flying all day. Fighters don't.

And at level 1, the fighter has no utility. 2 spells are more than no spells, especially when they can just invalidate an encounter.

Also, I didn't post anything before. You willingly took up a stupid argument that anyone with a brain would disagree with you on.

A fighter does not carry parties. He can wreck face, but dealing damage is the least optimal way to deal with threats in 3.5

You seem to be under the impression that I somehow need to make this argument, or that you typing 'hahahalol wrong' will somehow make the problem go away.

This problem exists. I've looked up the facts. I've experienced it firsthand. It's real. So instead of begging for proof so you can cover your ears and yell to not hear it, just direct you to the other million times this argument has taken place, the exact same things were said, and the exact same conclusion was apparent.

Sure, you can build a 3.5 fighter that does a thousand damage a turn and is loaded up with so many magic items it's hard to blast him directly, but all that means nothing when there's a person to convince, a chasm to fly over, magic items that need to be made, or another plane to open a portal to.

>Turns out a lot of level 20 monsters have pretty fucking shit will/ref saves if they are big brutes or mediocre fort saves if they are cunning spellcasters. The advantage of spells i that you don't need to go for the strongest save, you can go for the weakest.

I don't know what monster manual you're reading buddy, but it's not the D&D 3.5 one.

>balance
>in a universal system designed to represent anything from hunter gatherers to posthuman entities in the year 20000AD to olympian gods to psychic pastries.
>inelegant
>manages to do 95% of the above in just two books
Is GURPS perfect? No, personally I hate the artwork and default magic system. Does it accomplish what it set out to do which is create a system capable of representing anything in a playable fashion? Yes. As an added plus, it is well written, has a helpful community, and good developers who listen to said community. For people like me who enjoy historical games, it's even better because it's historical books are incredibly well sourced by any standards and are written by experts in those fields.

>And at level 1, the fighter has no utility. 2 spells are more than no spells, especially when they can just invalidate an encounter.

The fighter is also much better at fighting.
Nobody is claiming the fighter is a utility class.

>Also, I didn't post anything before.
Irrelevant.
If you're going to carry on someone else's argument, you bear the consequences of it.
If you wanted to make a new argument, you should have done it.

>A fighter does not carry parties. He can wreck face, but dealing damage is the least optimal way to deal with threats in 3.5
>>I have never played D&D 3.5 RAW in my entire life

>You seem to be under the impression that I somehow need to make this argument, or that you typing 'hahahalol wrong' will somehow make the problem go away.
You do, because you made an assertion. When you assert something, you have to back it up with an argument.
Not an ad hominem like you're doing now.

>This problem exists. I've looked up the facts. I've experienced it firsthand. It's real. So instead of begging for proof so you can cover your ears and yell to not hear it, just direct you to the other million times this argument has taken place, the exact same things were said, and the exact same conclusion was apparent.

If your "problem" is that the fighter has less utility than other classes, then it's a non problem.
Not all classes have equal utility, nor should they.

>Sure, you can build a 3.5 fighter that does a thousand damage a turn and is loaded up with so many magic items it's hard to blast him directly, but all that means nothing when there's a person to convince, a chasm to fly over,
Just want to stop you there and point out that any high level fighter without a magic item to fly, or some other positioning item is either really dense, or reliant on his team for it.

>magic items that need to be made, or another plane to open a portal to.
We've already covered the fact that fighters aren't utility based.
That doesn't make them irrelevant.

why do you try so hard to defend such a garbage system

The Tarrasque has an 18 point difference between it's Fort and it's Will Save.

A Titan has a 13 point difference between it's Fort and it's Ref Save.

Moving to creatures that could turn up in a level 20 encounter (But are not CR 20 on their own)

A 12 headed pyrohydra has twice the fort save that is has Will.

A mummy lord has a 7 point difference between it's Will and it's Fort save and a 12 point difference between it's Will and it's Ref Save.

3.5 creatures very much have targetable weak points.

>The fighter is also much better at fighting.

He's +1 BAB and +1 Feat. That's...it.

At level 1, the Druid has an Animal Companion. Druid + Animal Companion kicks the shit out of level 1 fighter.

Mostly just because it amuses me to watch you guys struggle to justify your bias,
which you only have due to being an RPG hipster, so you think everything popular must suck.

btw, I don't even play 3.5/pf anymore.

>Not all classes have equal utility, nor should they.

Why not?

>If your "problem" is that the fighter has less utility than other classes, then it's a non problem.
>Not all classes have equal utility, nor should they.

Argument where?

>That's...it.

Wrong, there are more advantages the fighter has.
See if you can figure it out.
If you can't, ask nicely and I'll educate you.

I've been a Fighter in the same party as a Druid with a Wolf companion.

First fight against some Orcs? He gets most with entangle, and I'm stuck on cleanup duty with his dog. And his dog is even better at it than me because he gets to knock people prone. And even though I do more damage and am a bit tougher than the dog, the Druid is making ranged attacks while this is happening, easily overshadowing anything I'm doing.

Fighters at level 1 are shit at fighting. If I had been another Druid instead, we would have been doing way better. The 1 extra BAB and bonus feat isn't going to match up to that level of crowd control and number of attacks.

Have this last (you), since you're clearly more interested in debating than discussing.

(you)

ar·gu·ment
ˈärɡyəmənt/
noun
noun: argument; plural noun: arguments

1.
...
2.
a reason or set of reasons given with the aim of persuading others that an action or idea is right or wrong.

tl;dr, you just posted it

Heavy Armour Prof (But not enough money to actually afford it at level 1)

Martial Weapon Prof (yay, a 1 die size bonus over the other guy)

The druid has the HP advantage between the two of them. His personal hit die is slightly smaller (Though only barely) but he's got an entire second set of HP in the animal companion.

>a reason or set of reasons given with the aim of persuading others that an action or idea is right or wrong.

This was absent from what I posted.

(you)

Except you didn't give reasons why classes shouldn't have utility.

>Wrong, there are more advantages the fighter has.
the fighter gets extra feats, except most feats in 3.5 are worthless garbage, so there's that
he also gets weapon and armor proficiency which doesn't matter
oh and he gets a whopping +1 bonus to will saves against fear from second level as opposed to a paladin which is literally immune to fear from 3rd level

You obviously weren't playing RAW
>And his dog is even better at it than me because he gets to knock people prone.
d20srd.org/srd/monsters/dog.htm
Dogs have no special ability to knock people prone, and that's the exact kind of animal a druid has as an animal companion.
If you're not outdoing that 1/3 cr creature as a level 1 fighter, then you've done something wrong.

You're still missing out on a lot.
Want some help?

hint: try reading more than the fucking stat block (*^_^)

He said wolf first. Wolves are part of the canine family (Hence dog) but level 1 druids can get Wolves as animal companions.

So did you just misread the 'wolf companion' in the first line by accident or on purpose?

>Not all classes have equal utility, nor should they.

Ok, why don't you explain what advantages they have that actually matter?

(you)

Like fucking what? Fortitude saves?
Fewer skills than a literal commoner?
Feats? To do what? Suck less?
Power Word Blind gives no save. Congrats, you now miss 50% of the time no matter how good your saves are.
>But I have more than 200 HP
Like hell you do at level 13. A CON 17 Fighter gets 169 HP MAX at level 13, assuming he doesn't boost it with his apparently all-powerful feats. If you roll for HP, you have more like 97.
>I'll just take Blindfighting as a feat
Congrats. You now only miss 25% of the time. With your three attacks, I'm sure at least one of them will hit.

>>Not all classes have equal utility, nor should they.

>Reason or set of reasons

Again, argument where?

That's a statement, not an argument on why 'nor should they' applies.

(you)

Regardless of whether it was a wolf or a dog, a level 1 fighter is easily better than both of them.

You guys are forgetting the most important ability Fighters have: A growing sense of impotence.

I told you to ask nicely.
:^)

And then you remember that the Wolf has a free Druid backing them up, because at the point where you're comparing an entire class to a single class feature, it should be clear things aren't balanced.

(you)

Not really.

The wolf literally has twice your hit dice. Unless the Fighter has 16 con, the wolf has more HP than you.

While the fighter has a decent chance of beating the wolf, that's only one of the pair and the wolf isn't even a character. It's a class feature.

Been a while since I played 3.5 but the Fighter could take the intimidate skill which could be used in combat to give an opponent -2 to attack, saves, and skill rolls. Or just spend some dosh to hire some minions to offset the druids animal companion, then what is stopping the druid from hiring mooks to fight your mooks? Just hope you roll for more money than he does during character creation?

It's a class feature that is good at low levels but scales terribly.
Oh well, guess the game is broken :^P

>It's a class feature that is good at low levels but scales terribly.
hey, just like the entire fighter class

(you)

What happened to 'A level 1 fighter can beat both of them easily'?

3 posts ago, everyone was saying that just because a level 20 fighter easily beats a level 20 druid, that doesn't mean the class is good.
Now apparently you're claiming otherwise.
Go read above in the thread. I'm not bothering with this again.

(you)

>3 posts ago, everyone was saying that just because a level 20 fighter easily beats a level 20 druid, that doesn't mean the class is good.
actually i'm pretty sure it was shown that no, a level 20 fighter would not easily beat a level 20 druid
>Now apparently you're claiming otherwise.
dunno where you're getting that from friend

How did this thread turn into an argument about 3.5?
This is just

I think the person you replied to wasn't the poster you thought they were.

"Both of them" meant both the dog and wolf.
A fighter 'could' beat a druid.
1 attack can often kill a level one druid.
It depends on a lot of factors, and at that low level, luck will make or break the fight for either side.
But the point is, my post meant both a dog or wolf.

Oh damn I forgot about spiked chain human fighter which was possible by combat expertise, improved trip, and some AoO feat.

>For what, d4+1 rounds? Psh, I'll live through it.
Finger of Death. Its cleric cousin, Destruction.
Flesh to Stone.
Forcecage.
>A Level 20 Fighter easily beats a Level 20 Druid
In what fucking universe?
Does he deal maximum damage and hit with all of his attacks, which he has to make without moving more than 5 feet?
Does he have a fucking Vorpal sword or something?

Except the level 20 fighter doesn't easily beat the level 20 druid.

I mean, even discounting everything else: The druid has Hide and Move Silent as class skills. The Fighter doesn't have the skill points to oppose that.

The druid can turn into animals that are indistinguishable from other animals.

There isn't really many ways a fighter can get the jump on a druid/be sure to fight the druid in an area he'd prefer to fight.

Even discounting the fact that the level 20 druid kills the ever loving shit out of the level 20 fighter the moment a single will save spell is thrown. The level 20 fighter still needs to get past: AC, DR and Miss Chance before he even touches HP.

You are literally the only person who said the fighter can beat a druid in a fight.

said that PvP is irrelevent because the druid brings more to the table.

Even this current argument is about what the druid brings to the table over the fighter (another, better fighter in a class feature), not about how the level 1 druid could beat the level 1 fighter in a fight (though he could.)

Because the OP was complaining about the textbook arguments 3.5 defenders like using.

Because like pottery the exact people OP complained about came crawling out of the woodwork to whine.

(you)

>OP makes a thread about people bending over backwards trying to justify shitty systems.
>Thread fills with people doing just that .

Fucking amazing.

Well, the Wolf has a pretty good chance to kill the fighter too.

>50ft movement speed
>Reasonable attack bonus for it's level
>Automatic trip attempt on hits.

The fighter is going to be on the defensive for that one unless he's an archer and even if he IS, the druid's wolf can charge 100ft.

We've already gone over this.
Read the thread. I'm not explaining it again.

Wrong, read the thread.

(you)

A fighter will have more AC than either of them, more attack bonus, about the same hp as the wolf, more damage, and a better chance to hit.
He's outnumbered, yes.
But it's not that 1 sided of a match up, and the fighter has good odds of downing the druid with 1 hit.

I'm not saying animal companion isn't a good level 1 ability,
because it is,
but it scales badly, and the fighter has advantages of his own.

>A RPG is more than just its mechanics you know.
No it isn't.

Fluff is just that, FLUFF, and it can be paired with any mechanics you desire at any point in time, changed or removed at the drop of a hat.

>Wrong, read the thread.

I did.
I even linked to the relevant posts.

You have yet to explain anything or provide an argument. If you want to shitpost, that's fine, but you could have taken the opportunity to bow out with dignity when you got btfo.

>But it's not that 1 sided of a match up, and the fighter has good odds of downing the druid with 1 hit.

Well, if he gets to melee. His ranged chance of downing the druid is basically nil since he can't afford a composite bow yet.

>the argument doesn't exist if I don't read it!
okay cool
Guess you win then, right?

You need to stop acting like people care if a Fighter can kill a druid. That doesn't matter for balance.

The better question is who's more likely to solo a crowd of goblins. The frontliner with slightly better HP and damage, or the frontliner with crowd control abilities and a ranged support with more crowd control abilities.

(you)

Still no argument.

Sure.
Level 1 fighter doesn't do very well as an archer imo
I mean, you can do it, but as a level 1 fighter, I think your're better off in melee defending the rest of the party.
As a melee fighter, you could get scale mail and a heavy shield.
Then you're looking at like 17, 18, or even 19 AC.
When your enemy has +3 to hit, that's pretty good.

Like I said, it depends a lot on the build, other factors, and luck to a large degree.

Argue about what?
You won dude! Go celebrate your victory!

>Argue about what?

You to back up a single statement you've made this entire thread with an argument.