D&D 3E/3.5 Why 3.5 Worked

[Acolyte of Zothique]

I ran and played in a dozen or more 3.5 games that ran to 14th-22nd level. It was over powered, but as long as the DM knew the PCs strengths and weaknesses, it wasn't all that hard to challenge them with encounters. I didn't find the game broken at all. Some individual spells or feats, sure. The game as a whole, no.

That's your experience, it wasn't mine. We discovered class, prestige class and spell combinations that were rampantly broken. High level Psions with Astral constructs and Druids who could cast spells while wild shaped with Giant Animal companions were the straw that broke the camel's back.

The players discovered broken high level aspects to the game and - as the DM - so did I. Our games degenerated into an overpowered arms race.

I'm glad that some people managed high level 3.5 games - I'm not sure how though. DMing high level 3.5 was a nightmare due to the myriad of abilities and feats to keep track of. 3.5 was poorly designed for high level play and I'm not certain it was really playtested. Throw in material from the myriad of sourcebooks - the combinations of which could not possibly have been playtested - and you have an unholy mess.

The only way 3.5 was playable at high level was if you stuck strictly to core book material; we didn't so I'm very grateful that 5e has reigned in the splat bloat.

 

[Maxperson]

That's your experience, it wasn't mine. We discovered class, prestige class and spell combinations that were rampantly broken. High level Psions with Astral constructs and Druids who could cast spells while wild shaped with Giant Animal companions were the straw that broke the camel's back.

The players discovered broken high level aspects to the game and - as the DM - so did I. Our games degenerated into an overpowered arms race.

The problem here is that broken = more than I personally find acceptable. What you find acceptable vs. what I find acceptable will be different I'm sure. I really don't care much about power disparity and high power levels. At a point it becomes broken for me, but that point is probably greater than your breaking point.

I never once had an issue with a high level psion and his constructs, nor druids casting while wild shaped. Giant animal companions were strong, but not broken.

I could still challenge those PCs, so they weren't broken.

I'm glad that some people managed high level 3.5 games - I'm not sure how though. DMing high level 3.5 was a nightmare due to the myriad of abilities and feats to keep track of. 3.5 was poorly designed for high level play and I'm not certain it was really playtested. Throw in material from the myriad of sourcebooks - the combinations of which could not possibly have been playtested - and you have an unholy mess.

I will agree with you at the epic levels. The Epic Handbook wasn't tested at all as far as I could tell and was just thrown together.

The only way 3.5 was playable at high level was if you stuck strictly to core book material; we didn't so I'm very grateful that 5e has reigned in the splat bloat.

Due to your absolute claim here you are just flat out wrong. It was playable at high level with more than the core books. I did it, so I know it can be done.

 

[Don Durito]

This is incorrect. It was popular with at LEAST two types of player & DM. The optimizer group. And the roleplay group that chose feats and such for their character, even if not optimal for leveling. There were probably other types as well, but those are the two largest camps that I saw that loved 3e.

But if you're somewhere in the middle the two things conflict with each other mightily.

 

[TheSword]

It was a golden age of supplements - Eberron and Forgotten Realms in particular, but also the Planar Handbook, Expanded Psionics, Spell Compendium etc.

However with the exception of maybe Red Hand of Doom, and possibly the Twisting of the Weave Trilogy the adventures were consistently awful IMHO.

It was great for people who wanted to write their own adventures and campaigns and loved rules - therefore terrible for new players who didn’t want such a high barrier to entry.

Had the same quality of adventure writing been applied to 3.5 as to the current campaigns I think it would have been amazing.

 

[Tony Vargas]

3.xE edition was popular with a certain type of player & DM. It is filled with detailed mechanics, and an important aspect of the game is breaking down the best (usually "optimal") choices for character creation and leveling. This appeals to players interested in such things, but many others (like myself) do not enjoy that level of math and planning. It's not really that different that why some players still love 4E, or really any other edition, because it best has the mechanical aspects enjoyed by those players.

I can't accept the whole one-note player pigeonholing. Maybe there was just too much of it during the edition war. Maybe it's just that it's just me. I really liked 3e, more 3.0 than 3.5, but still. I really liked AD&D back in the day. I really liked 4e. So all the "edition X only appeals to player Y" rationalizations are singularly unconvincing to me.

But, 3.x did have definite appeal on several dimensions. It was an elaborate exercise in rewarding system mastery, inspired in that way by WotC's own M:tG. It also could be turned to detailed/evocative build-to-concept. It was also OGL. Nor was that all...

Honestly, if only for myself, 3e worked because of the whole "Back to the Dungeon" attitude. The hobby had been notionally led by the storyteller crowd for close to a decade, and the novelty had worn off. 3e was D&D, fixed up and made into a Core System (like BRP, d6, Interlock & others from the 80s), and open-source core system, even: d20. Yea, it was also a 'build' system deeply & intentionally susceptible to optimization.

3.5, OTOH, was just the consequence of being taken over by Hasbro - y'know, the old grognardly 'cash grab' complaint. It worked out because the 3e crowd was deeply bought into RaW system-mastery, and 3.0 stuff held until superseded, producing all sorts of interesting, shifting opportunities for mastery. That kind of deep buy-in could have held onto those fans indefinitely - and did hold onto them for an additional 10 years, even into the teeth of 5e's overwhelming market dominance.

Oh, and 3.x in general, was also a very player-centric game, the DM was more like a player than any other edition. Oh, and, while I don't care for PvP, 3.x was easily the best edition for that purpose, too.
I could go on.
RPGs are complex, they potentially have a lot of depth. They can be approached in different ways by different players. And the players and the styles of play aren't one-dimensional, either, so you CAN go ahead and appreciate more than one game, for more than one reason each.

 

[Aaron L]

I've played 1E, 2E, 3E, and v3.5, and would happily play it again if the DM wanted to run a campaign with those rules. I loved 3.5 and had no probelm whatsoever with it, no nostalgia required, playing the first character I made for the edition up to 26th level (started on the night the PHB was released and we drove out to another town to buy copies we had reserved for everyone, with the little "DM's Survival Guide" in the back.) I would also happily 1E or 2E (preferring 1E) but 5E is actually my favorite edition. (I do not like 4E at all.)

 

[Catolias]

Still play it, still love doing so. Having said that, my group and I play it with a lot of homebrew elements to increase the risk of failure for higher levels (got up to lvl 13 before we accidentally all killed ourselves). One key mechanic for this has been using locational damage.

 

[Shiroiken]

This is incorrect. It was popular with at LEAST two types of player & DM. The optimizer group. And the roleplay group that chose feats and such for their character, even if not optimal for leveling. There were probably other types as well, but those are the two largest camps that I saw that loved 3e.

I only mentioned the first group, because they were the major proponents that I knew who switched to Pathfinder, or stayed with 3E, rather than go to 4E. With the introduction of 5E, I found that same group of players had a harder time switching over to 5E as well, because it didn't have the gritty mechanical detail they like.

I didn't mean to imply that only CharOp players liked 3E, only that those who liked the detailed mechanical crunch were usually its biggest fans. It isn't necessarily about min/maxing, but it is about the detailed mechanics that allowed for very unique characters. Even roleplayers liked the use of feats and multi-classing to create special characters they liked (one of my group had a Ranger/Sorcerer that was VERY interesting, but mechanically weak). That level of minutia is primarily found in 3E and its derivatives (from the OGL and Pathfinder), so that is why I think 3E (and its derivatives) is still so popular.

 

[Acolyte of Zothique]

The problem here is that broken = more than I personally find acceptable. What you find acceptable vs. what I find acceptable will be different I'm sure. I really don't care much about power disparity and high power levels. At a point it becomes broken for me, but that point is probably greater than your breaking point.

I never once had an issue with a high level psion and his constructs, nor druids casting while wild shaped. Giant animal companions were strong, but not broken.

I could still challenge those PCs, so they weren't broken.



I will agree with you at the epic levels. The Epic Handbook wasn't tested at all as far as I could tell and was just thrown together.



Due to your absolute claim here you are just flat out wrong. It was playable at high level with more than the core books. I did it, so I know it can be done.

You misunderstand me, I DMed 3.5 using many sourcebooks and it was a nightmare. I never ran 3.5 using just the core books, I'm speculating that just using the core books was the only way to maintain sanity.

Just to be absolutely clear, I had a huge library of 3.5 books and I allowed all of them into my game. This created a nightmare of broken combinations. You may have managed fine doing this, I did not.

My objective experience differs from yours - however my experience was that high level 3.5 with lots of books was a disaster. Don't try to tell me my experience is 'wrong'.

 

[Acolyte of Zothique]

The problem here is that broken = more than I personally find acceptable. What you find acceptable vs. what I find acceptable will be different I'm sure. I really don't care much about power disparity and high power levels. At a point it becomes broken for me, but that point is probably greater than your breaking point.

I never once had an issue with a high level psion and his constructs, nor druids casting while wild shaped. Giant animal companions were strong, but not broken.

I could still challenge those PCs, so they weren't broken.



I will agree with you at the epic levels. The Epic Handbook wasn't tested at all as far as I could tell and was just thrown together.



Due to your absolute claim here you are just flat out wrong. It was playable at high level with more than the core books. I did it, so I know it can be done.

You misunderstand me, I DMed 3.5 using many sourcebooks and it was a nightmare. I never ran 3.5 using just the core books, I'm speculating that just using the core books was the only way to maintain sanity.

Just to be absolutely clear, I had a huge library of 3.5 books and I allowed all of them into my game. This created a nightmare of broken combinations. You may have managed fine doing this, I did not.

My objective experience differs from yours - however my experience was that high level 3.5 with lots of books was a disaster. Don't try to tell me my experience is 'wrong'.