D&D 3E/3.5 The indispensable 3.5

[theuglyamerican]

As a brief explanation, played D&D, adopted 1E when it came out, moved to 2E, and then abandoned the game for other systems until the advent of Pathfinder, when I returned and found myself delighted by the plucky underdog poking Hasbro in the eye with a sharp stick. So I missed the rollout of 3.X and view this all through Paizo-colored glasses. Anyhoo:

1. Highly customizable characters, whether by feat, archetype, kit, choosable class features, or some other method I'm not clever enough to think of. This was really my main beef with previous editions, and what drove me away to games like Hero during the 2E days. I just couldn't make the characters I wanted to play under previous editions, and now I can.

2. Likewise, extremely liberal (and preferably free) multiclassing. I want to play the character I want to play, not what the designers tell me I should want to play. In a vast number of cases, the only way to do it is to multiclass.

2.5. The ability to make my own niche, without defined party rolls. This is one that 4E players will disagree with, but for me a huge part of the fun of playing the game is making your party composition work regardless of which pieces you have in the mix, and I don't want to have to mold my character concept to a predefined set of mandated needs.

3. A variety of selectable racial traits, as Pathfinder began to do with the APG and will expand with Ultimate Racist...er, sorry, the Advanced Race Guide. I understand 4E does this as well, and a good idea is a good idea no matter the source.

4. Strong support for detailed, grid-based combat, whether it's core or not. This includes things like AoO, combat maneuvers, movement having an impact on the amount of attacking you can do, area attacks, etc.

5. Iterative attacks. I know it's controversial, but I find it a good solution to the problem of making martial characters better at martial pursuits than other character types.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

There are a few key things for me (and I'm assuming 3.x/PF things here that 4e did not take under her wing):

• An absolute DC system rather than a relative one. I prefer that such things are firmly anchored to an imagined believable world rather than a set of probability results.

• Magic and Magical Items that can be quite versatile and expansive in what they can achieve, rather than being limited to hp damage plus condition or feeling like they have been taken from a matrix or series of permutations of design space.

• Archetypes from Pathfinder (please excuse me here but it really is D&D 3.75 and the concept is so brilliant, it demands inclusion). As a way of varying classes without the hassle of multiclassing and having to wait x levels for a broken prestige class; the concept is absolutely brilliant. Throw themes on top of this and you have absolute zing!

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[eamon]

• A focus making rules that make sense in-game. Rules should be designed to simplify adjudication of a complex fantasy, not to implement balanced competition that happens to bear some resemblence to the fantasy. In short; rules as approximations of fantasy, not rules as axioms.
• Share "powers" (in 3e: spells) across classes to keep them recognizable and distinctive. 3e wasn't too brilliant at this, but 4e's a step in the wrong direction in this matter: Way too many powers, and nobody recognizes each others powers (everything is just a minor variation along extremely standized lines).
• Monsters (in particular NPCs) & PC's conceptually work by the same rules. Simplification of monsters by default is good (e.g. 4e); but the differences should be limited to those necessary to keep it simple enough for the DM, not to result in a completely different mechanics (e.g. healing surges, hit point totals, etc)
• Varied class design: don't standardize things like power recovery; let each class feel as mechanically distinctive at the table as the PC's it represents are in the fantasy.
• The choice of strategy matters more than raw power. It's good for encounters to be overpowering to some strategies yet walk-overs for others. Balance is actively harmful to fun when it undermines the fantasy. A fat ogre should be easy to hit yet hard to hurt. It should have a high fortitude yet low reflex.

 

[Neonchameleon]

2.5. The ability to make my own niche, without defined party rolls. This is one that 4E players will disagree with, but for me a huge part of the fun of playing the game is making your party composition work regardless of which pieces you have in the mix, and I don't want to have to mold my character concept to a predefined set of mandated needs.

Just on a tangent, no 4e players don't disagree with this (although some might). I'm DMing for a group with three strikers and a controller who's a borderline striker* - and it's awesome. Very fast and brutal play. On the other hand calling them strikers tells the players and the DM what to expect out of the classes at a meta-level, so it's useful quick information for both class design and class selection.

* Thief, Ranger (Scout - twin axes), Vampire, and Ranger (Hunter - greatbow) as the controller. Given that everyone has a dex of 18 or more and is trained in stealth, it has the nickname "Team Ninja" and has just finished an asymmetric warfare campaign against far too many ogres.

 

[CM]

Just on a tangent, no 4e players don't disagree with this (although some might). ... On the other hand calling them strikers tells the players and the DM what to expect out of the classes at a meta-level, so it's useful quick information for both class design and class selection.

To expand on this, if you're joining a 4e game and you hear "We need a defender" or "We need a leader" it's just the new version of "We need a fighter" or "We need a cleric" that you might have heard in a pre-4e game.

I don't know of any groups that require anyone play a specific role, but it's generally good for the group if all the bases are covered. Typically my players have so many different character concepts in mind that they are able to pick one that meshes well with the group and go from there.

 

[Ahnehnois]

*Skills
*Feats
*Monsters with skills, feats, and full HD and customization options
*Unearthed Arcana
*Multiclassing (with some math fixes needed)
*Saves
*DCs
*Unrestricted class selection
*Warlocks
*Goliaths
*Alternate class features (which were codified into archetypes later on)
*The planes
*Reserve feats
*Tactical feats
*The d20 system (unified mechanic, as some said)
*The OGL (and all its consequences)

 

[Rhenny]

I vote combat maneuvers and saving throws.

I currently play 4e with my buddies on the VTT, and they have a hard time accepting when an enemy attack applies a condition upon them directly from the enemy attack. We are all older D&D players so we are having a tough time dealing with no saves vs. to determine conditions like dazed, stunned, slowed, immobilized, etc.

 

[Serendipity]

The OGL (and thus Necromancer Games, among others), the SRD, ascending AC, the sorcerer (though I give props to Pathfinder for really making it shine), the idea of templates (not so much the execution), selection of class by race opened up, Eberron, and Lords of Madness.

 

[the Jester]

The ability to toolkit pcs and monsters (without requiring it to build an effective pc/npc/monster). This includes things like templates, which I notice are mentioned above.
Prestige classes.
Racial class levels or substitution level options.
Avolakia.

 

[ShinHakkaider]

The ability to toolkit pcs and monsters (without requiring it to build an effective pc/npc/monster). This includes things like templates, which I notice are mentioned above.

THIS. GODS yes, THIS.