3D chart templates plot three numeric variables at once (x, y and z) instead of the two a flat chart is limited to. On PlotSet that means three chart types: 3D scatter for a cloud of individual points in space, 3D surface for a continuous value that changes smoothly across a grid, and 3D bar for a small comparison across two categorical axes. All three share the same trade-off. You gain a dimension, but you lose the thing that makes 2D charts easy to read at a glance: a value you can measure with your eye against a single, unambiguous axis.
That trade-off is why 3D charts have a bad reputation, and mostly a deserved one. Perspective makes far bars look shorter than near ones of the same height. Points behind other points are simply gone unless someone rotates the view, which a static export or an embedded image can't do for the reader. A 3D bar chart with more than six or seven bars usually turns into a wall of overlapping boxes nobody can rank by eye. None of this is a PlotSet limitation. It's geometry: any tool rendering true 3D on a flat screen runs into the same occlusion and distortion.
So use 3D when the third axis is doing real work: terrain elevation, a temperature or pressure surface across two spatial dimensions, molecular structures, lidar or point-cloud data. Those are cases where x, y and z are all genuinely continuous and spatial meaning is the point. For everything else, a 2D chart usually communicates the same information more accurately. A scatter plot with the third variable mapped to point color or size reads faster than a 3D scatter rotated to a guessed angle, and a heatmap crossing two categorical axes against one number is easier to read accurately than a 3D bar chart in almost every case.