-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
When did you enjoy 3.x?
- Thread starter joela
- Start date
I've always enjoyed both running it and playing it. i prefered 3.0 vs 3.5 but its been a blast, I find it both easy to run and play at most fo the levels, 15ish+ I can easily run but the power scale starts to become heavily skewed to the casters and I have to work to balance that. I've been playing shadowrun and running Saga recently though, and when 4e comes out I'll give that a spin.
I loved 3.0 when it first came out. It was the feats, skills, and simple multiclassing. The promise that fighters and rogues would have powers that would be interesting, just like casters had interesting abilities.
As someone said above, it was true for a bit. The multiclassing thing worked well if you were mixing two non-caster classes. I started getting annoyed by 3e when 3.5 came out. Yes, it "fixed" issues with rangers and bards (though Monty's bard was far superior imo), but prestige classes and feats were ran all over like cockroaches on a 3 week old plate of tuna. It was also about this time when I realized that you simply couldn't multiclass as a caster and that fighters were just fighters, though leveling one was more interesting. The problem was your options only came during character generation and leveling. In combat, it was much like previous editions. That said, I had no real problem with 3e as a player - I just figured out what rules I liked and created characters that played to those strengths. One thing truly killed 3e for me though. DMing.
I've been a DM since the game was released in the 70s, and after working on games for mid level characters, I really started to hate the system that I thought I'd love. "Hey, creating monsters is easy! Just pick a base type, level the monster with chart X, add a template, add character levels, pick feats and skills and you're ready to go!" Yeah. It seemed easy enough when I read about the theory, but in practice in annoyed the bajeesus out of me. I pretty rapidly went back to my old 1e method of just making up whatever I wanted. As such, I had basically pitched the monster manual, I made up my own magic items because I didn't like the item creation rules nor all the boring +X items, so the DMG rapidly became useless as well. Basically, the only thing I kept was the classes, and I ended up giving each character special abilities to make up for the lack of true options. So yeah, I was rolling D20 and comparing it to a DC (like a bunch of other games I could name), but it was barely recognizable as 3e.
4e again has put me in the "hopeful" category. We'll see how it plays out, but seeing as how the mechanics for the wizards and warriors are the same, it seems more likely that the two will be more equally enjoyable from an in-game options perspective. We'll see how it all pans out in a couple weeks.
As someone said above, it was true for a bit. The multiclassing thing worked well if you were mixing two non-caster classes. I started getting annoyed by 3e when 3.5 came out. Yes, it "fixed" issues with rangers and bards (though Monty's bard was far superior imo), but prestige classes and feats were ran all over like cockroaches on a 3 week old plate of tuna. It was also about this time when I realized that you simply couldn't multiclass as a caster and that fighters were just fighters, though leveling one was more interesting. The problem was your options only came during character generation and leveling. In combat, it was much like previous editions. That said, I had no real problem with 3e as a player - I just figured out what rules I liked and created characters that played to those strengths. One thing truly killed 3e for me though. DMing.
I've been a DM since the game was released in the 70s, and after working on games for mid level characters, I really started to hate the system that I thought I'd love. "Hey, creating monsters is easy! Just pick a base type, level the monster with chart X, add a template, add character levels, pick feats and skills and you're ready to go!" Yeah. It seemed easy enough when I read about the theory, but in practice in annoyed the bajeesus out of me. I pretty rapidly went back to my old 1e method of just making up whatever I wanted. As such, I had basically pitched the monster manual, I made up my own magic items because I didn't like the item creation rules nor all the boring +X items, so the DMG rapidly became useless as well. Basically, the only thing I kept was the classes, and I ended up giving each character special abilities to make up for the lack of true options. So yeah, I was rolling D20 and comparing it to a DC (like a bunch of other games I could name), but it was barely recognizable as 3e.
4e again has put me in the "hopeful" category. We'll see how it plays out, but seeing as how the mechanics for the wizards and warriors are the same, it seems more likely that the two will be more equally enjoyable from an in-game options perspective. We'll see how it all pans out in a couple weeks.
Fiendish Dire Weasel
First Post
DandD said:
Any RPG with the right GM and players can be fun, when you have a good story and characters. This doesn't mean the game itself is partifularly good.
(Psi)SeveredHead
Adventurer
gribble said:
IMO it was a broken fix. I would have made it 3/day and no breaking of the metacap.
(So a 12th-level wizard could Empower Fireball 3/day and only expend a 3rd-level slot, but could not Maximize Chain Lightning, even once per day.)
evildmguy
Explorer
I think what "broke" any edition of DND for me was having players with different goals than me. I have always wanted to tell a story about heroes, heroes that were played by my friends, and what these heroes did on their journey. I wanted to do that in a fantasy background. I wanted to recreate my favorite books and the journeys those characters had. Or movies. Or a TV show.
Instead, until about five years ago, I had rules lawyers in every game I have ever done. They aren't bad but they don't help.
Playing ANY game by the RAW doesn't work for me. I want trust from my players that I have an idea in mind and that it is hopefully going to be "kewl" if they will trust me. I try to be consistent in playing with any game's rules. But I am still trying to tell a story.
I am currently running a 3.x game and what people have said is true. It's tough to know if the BBEG I have created, after many hours, will be too easy or a TPK. It's tough to know what one failed save will mean. It gets very complicated to figure these things out.
So, like others, I am not down on 3.x but I am hoping 4E "solves" some of the issues I have.
Of course, more than that, I am very grateful for players who are willing to try other things, and trust in me when I DM, to make it a fun and interesting time for all. I think I could go back to 1E, or some other older game, and have fun (Star Frontiers looked interesting through my older and more experienced eyes) because of the players I have more than the rules that I have.
edg
Instead, until about five years ago, I had rules lawyers in every game I have ever done. They aren't bad but they don't help.
Playing ANY game by the RAW doesn't work for me. I want trust from my players that I have an idea in mind and that it is hopefully going to be "kewl" if they will trust me. I try to be consistent in playing with any game's rules. But I am still trying to tell a story.
I am currently running a 3.x game and what people have said is true. It's tough to know if the BBEG I have created, after many hours, will be too easy or a TPK. It's tough to know what one failed save will mean. It gets very complicated to figure these things out.
So, like others, I am not down on 3.x but I am hoping 4E "solves" some of the issues I have.
Of course, more than that, I am very grateful for players who are willing to try other things, and trust in me when I DM, to make it a fun and interesting time for all. I think I could go back to 1E, or some other older game, and have fun (Star Frontiers looked interesting through my older and more experienced eyes) because of the players I have more than the rules that I have.
edg
ForbidenMaster
Explorer
I have never enjoyed 3.x. Admittedly I a only started to play D&D a couple of years ago and have only ever played 3.x, but I still never enjoyed it. Why then do I play D&D? I play it because I enjoy playing with my friends. The whole aspect of 3.x was generally the worst part of our sessions. It was always the story, and the camaraderie, and the fun of all being together that drew me in, not the rules for grapple.
PS. The dice rolling is pretty fun too.
PS. The dice rolling is pretty fun too.
