D&D 3E/3.5 3.X Retrospective 19 Years in Production.

[Zardnaar]

Ironically enough, 3.0's Harm (while certainly a very badly balanced spell in the context of the game it was in) was arguably less powerful than the reversed form of AD&D's Heal spell, because it had exactly the same effect (target loses all but 1d4 hp) but without offering a saving throw. Of course because hp totals were higher in 3e and because there was the option of metamagic etc to increase the spells' reach, and I think 3e clerics could cast it at lower level than then the line becomes a bit more blurry, but it's always struck me as a bit ironic that one of the big poster children for how broken 3.0 was, was basically exactly the same as it had been for many years in AD&D, during which time (apparently) it wasn't such a big deal.

3.0's 'nutty' harm only copped it because it was one of the few sore points in a system that otherwise was balanced beyond the dreams of what had gone before.

Difference was casting time.

AD&D priest casting time was slow and harm took a whole round to cast. Priest THACO as well.

3E standard action plus touch spell.

Metamagic as well harm plus quickened inflict wounds. Saw that combo used

3.0 buff spells as well. Plus metamagic.

 

[Voadam]

I keep seeing this statement made and I just don't agree. White box OD&D is patently incompatible with Basic D&D, and those are both incompatible with AD&D. If you have a straight up White Box Fighting Man, his Str only affects how quickly he earns experience. That's it. A Basic D&D Fighter only has d8 HD and gets no percentile strength.

OD&D white box also had d6 HD with not getting a full HD every level.

But . . . OD&D also had strength adjustments to attacks including percentile strength starting in Supplement I Greyhawk.

And going from 3.5 to Pathfinder 1e wizards and sorcerers, bards, and rogues all get a HD bump similar to going from Basic to AD&D.

3e to 3.5 to Pathfinder 1e you get increasing toughness as you go, both in PCs and in monsters of the same CR. Just compare a succubus in the 3 editions.

I was comfortable using adventures and monsters and magic items between B/X and AD&D and I was similarly comfortable using such across many d20 systems.

 

[Bacon Bits]

I was comfortable using adventures and monsters and magic items between B/X and AD&D and I was similarly comfortable using such across many d20 systems.

Absolutely. The game sharing a single Monster Manual and having enough ideas in common (surprise, move silently %, dispel magic, etc.) meant that adventures basically were portable. That was the main advantage of sticking with descending AC for 2e. I agree adventures were portable, but I don't think PCs were.

 

[GreyLord]

I keep seeing this statement made and I just don't agree. White box OD&D is patently incompatible with Basic D&D, and those are both incompatible with AD&D. If you have a straight up White Box Fighting Man, his Str only affects how quickly he earns experience. That's it. A Basic D&D Fighter only has d8 HD and gets no percentile strength.

The games used the same Monster Manual. That's all. The games are otherwise not compatible. You could run 1e and 2e AD&D characters in the same party, but you wouldn't want to vary that much and there was never really a reason to do so.

And that is okay to disagree.

However, Greyhawk which came out as the first supplement basically is the model upon which AD&D is based upon in many ways (and why I always use that supplement with all OD&D).

To say it was not the big game changer it was is disgenous in my opinion.

You could run OD&D and AD&D (and 2e) characters all in the same party easily if one wanted, MUCH easier even than a 3e and a PF 1e group being compatible even.

But, as I said above, it is okay to disagree, we all have different opinions and that's okay.

 

[Greg K]

I am willing to run a 3e game until levels 10-12 provided the additional material is, primarily limited to the core books, 3.5 Unearthed Arcana, a few class variants from Complete Champion, one or two WOTC web enhancements, a few third party supplements (including Green Ronin's Psychic's Handbook, Shaman's Handbook, and Witch's Handbook), and some house rules.

 

[Orius]

With Pathfinder 2 coming out in 2019 the 3.X family came to an end. There's probably some minor support left being released for PF1 but for the most part it's now dead in terms of new product.

It lasted 19 years the only other edition that can claim that is the old basic line (1977-94) and that's debatable.y

1977 though means you're counting Holmes, and Holmes is fairly different from Moldvay. Moldvay, Mentzer, and Black Box are all pretty similar though, and that has a roughly 15 year run if you're counting the tan Classic D&D box TSR had from 1994 to 1996.

I'd compare it to the total run of AD&D both 1e and 2e, which starts from 1977-1979 depending on how many of the hardcovers you're counting and runs until 2000. 2e may have changed and added a few things, and there's the stuff removed from the core books to appease the Angry Mothers from Heck but it's still mostly the same system.

Personally I haven't played it since 2013/14.

The oxymoron here is according to the internet it's a broken unplayable mess. That however requires some assumptions but I think the people who liked 3.X are probably not to different from any other edition.

1. They're somewhat casuals not powergamers lacking the knowledge and/or material that break the game. Or the incentive.

2. They don't play higher level that much anyway. By that level 8+ with few games over 11+.

3. Just not playing the expected internet way assumed.

So 3.X isn't my ideal choice but right DMir lack of better options I would still give it a shot. Love it or hate it 19 years of continuous support.

Thoughts?

It's not unplayably broken. The two biggest issues of 3e, namely the Linear Warrior, Quadratic Wizard and the math breakdowns past level 10 are problems that have plagued most editions of D&D. It's just that 3e really magnified these problems and made them more noticeable.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Personally, 3.X quickly became and remains my favorite iteration of D&D.

I will say, though, there are elements of 4Ed I think were clearly superior. Small things, mostly, like the designs for particular classes, like the Warlock. Enough for me to enjoy the game as a player, but not enough to appeal to me as a GM.

 

[Richards]

Whoa! New avatar, huh Dannyalcatraz? Nice!

Johnathan

 

[see]

However, Greyhawk which came out as the first supplement basically is the model upon which AD&D is based upon in many ways (and why I always use that supplement with all OD&D).

Yeah. Original white box alone had a lot of difference from AD&D, but OD&D including Supplements I-III and the material from The Strategic Review was not far from AD&D.

You can date the game line that ended in 2000 from any year '74-'79, depending on judgment. '74 is the original box; '75 is Greyhawk, Blackmoor, and The Strategic Review ranger & illusionist; '76 is Eldritch Wizardry & The Strategic Review bard; '77 is the AD&D Monster Manual; '78 is the AD&D PHB; '79 is the AD&D DMG.

But no later than '79 you had something that was continued by AD&D 2nd edition through 2000 at at least the same level that original 3rd was continued by PF1 as "3.x".

 

[Greg K]

Enough for me to enjoy the game as a player, but not enough to appeal to me as a GM.

I am more willing to run 3e than play it, because, as GM, I can both control the supplement being used and implement house rules to capture the feel that I want.