D&D 3E/3.5 3e beginnings (why first impressions are not always the right ones)

[delericho]

Rules transparency between monsters and PC , and the mathematic formulae in the MM seemed a great improvement

I've been thinking more about this recently, and I've fond myself wondering if it's not the case that this actually was a good idea, and should have been retained, but that the specific implementation didn't perform as expected.

The classic example of a weakness of this that gets thrown up is the Giant with the extremely high Fort saves and virtually no Will save... but I can't help but think that the problem there is the massive difference between 'good' and 'poor' saves (gone in 4e). I'm also wondering if perhaps the Giant 'class' should not have had a hit dice of 2d8 per level, giving a big boost in hit points without a matching boost in saves, BAB, and so forth (or, perhaps better, give each monster 'class' a fixed number of hp per level, with Giants getting 10 or 12, or even more).

I get really uneasy whenever I hear the designers commenting that, "designing X is really more art than science." Firstly, these things are basically mathematical entities, which strongly suggests that it's a matter of science. Perhaps more importantly, though, Andy Collins' 'art' might well not match Mike Mearls 'art', and James Wyatt's 'art' might be entirely different again. At least a properly-checked mathematical system provides a consistent baseline, even if some of the results aren't exactly right; what guarantees of consistency do we have without it. (That should not be read as a bash on 4e - just something that makes me uneasy.)

 

[tsadkiel]

Also, everyone in the world will take their first level in rogue, for the skill points. Then they will multi into monk. Which is why, even today, every single D&D character in existence is a dwarf rogue/monk.

 

[Wormwood]

Also, everyone in the world will take their first level in rogue, for the skill points.

Oh man, I completely forgot about that one!

 

[Brother MacLaren]

As a player of B/X and 2E, several things impressed me for their return to B/X simplicity -- such as standardized ability score charts, removal of weapon damage by enemy size, and the end of Exceptional Strength.
Rolling high for everything made sense.
The revised saves seemed elegant and intuitive.
I was and am *very* impressed with the elegance of the multiclassing system. Making it strictly additive was so much better than 2E's awkward mechanics.
The skill system is a great addition as well.

Things that I liked at first but then came to dislike: the huge variety of buff spells and items, the increase in spells per day for casters, the increase in direct offensive spells for clerics, feats, and the implementation of polymorph effects.

Things that I hated from the beginning and still hate: the wealth by level guidelines, the DMG demographics, the GP values of magic items, and the clear statement that magic items *should* be available for sale in a town of size X.

 

[Cadfan]

At the beginning I loved the multiclass and prestige class system. I didn't realize that letting you enter a PRC at any level you chose, then booting you out 10 levels later, was a structural flaw that would actually matter.

I thought fighters were a little odd, because the way they let you pick your own feats in any order you wanted meant that you would take all your combat feats first and all your noncombat feats later. I didn't realize that eventually enough expansions would be released that fighters would take combat feats first, then second, then in the middle, then at the end, and never take the non combat feats at all. I had assumed that Iron Will, Great Fortitude, Quick Draw, Improved Initiative, and so on, were standard issue for a fighter.

I thought that the general lameness of two weapon fighting would be balanced by the way rangers get favored enemy bonuses on both weapons. HAH, I tell you!

I thought sneak attack was broken when combined with two weapons. I might still believe this.

I didn't realize just how much spell resistance screws a spellcaster, and used it poorly as a DM.

 

[HeinorNY]

The sorcerer looked fun from the beginning, (and was).

I remember thinking: "The sorcerer is great! THAT's what wizards should always have been, we don't even need the current wizard class anymore!"

I remember looking at the Power Attack feat and thinking: "This feat sucks so much, the only use is as prerequisite for Cleave!"

 

[billd91]

Boy, this thread takes me back...

I've had a player complain about both the monk and mystic theurge being too powerful. Now, experience has taught me differently (though I didn't entirely agree with him on either account to begin with).

I will agree with delericho to a certain degree. I too like the idea of the formulae for monsters and think it was a good direction to go. But I don't agree that there isn't a certain amount of art involved. There are a number of different ways monsters can be modeled and dealt with under the mathematical structures in place and it's a question of art exactly how it is implemented. Some implementations work better than others, some will find weaknesses in the mathematical structure, some won't.
There's actually a lot of room for art in mathematics, particularly mathematical modeling like we're doing here.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I rememeber understanding AoO the first time I read the rules, and thinking, "This is a fine rule, but they spread out the explanation a bit too much. As soon as people get it, though, it will be accepted." Well, I still think it was a fine rule that needed better explanation, but boy was I wrong about the acceptance.

 

[DM_Blake]

I remember after 3E came out these boards were full of people arguing about how overpowered the monk was. I used to argue left and right that the monk was really not as overpowered as people thought, but still everyone seemed to think they were the most broken thing ever. Then people actually played them.....

You want an overpowered monk, then go fro 1/2 celestial with a Vow of Poverty feat.

Ick.

i have since houseruled that the Vow of Poverty cannot be applied to classes designed to be poor and non-reliant on the Christmas Tree of magic items, such as th emonk.

 

[Greg K]

I remember thinking:

1) I really disliked the barbarian being built around rage. I still do, but now there is the Barbarian hunter variant from UA.

2) The monk abitlities should have been more customizeable, because it did not fit the view my friends and I held of monks.

3) Many of my suggestions from the pre-3e questionaire were implemented
- a unified resolution mechanic
- removal of % strength
- unified ability score bonuses
- ability scores starting earlier
- humans can multiclass
- removal of level limits for demihumans
- skill points per level
- higher ac being better
- monster ability scores
- breaking down AC for monsters

4) I missed 2e specialty priests

5) Paladins and Rangers should either have spellcasting at level 1 or be a PrC

6) Customizing characters/class variants (3.0 phb p.94 would get more use and support

7) I disliked having to use multiclass rules for several concepts although multiclassed chararacters at level 1 made it more palatable.

8) I disliked PrCs for concepts that should have been playable at level 1 (made worse in 3.5 by the removal of apprentice multiclassing).