D&D 3E/3.5 Why 3.5 Worked

[Helldritch]

I didn't even make it that high. Once the very first party I DMd 3e for hit about 4th level, I realized that CR 4 creatures varied wildly in power and the variance only got worse the higher you went and the more abilities/spells things got.

It was something that did not appear immediately. I always play with 5 to 6 players. And in 3e you were encouraged to bring hirelings and followers... The rare discrepancies that did happen over time were put on the fact that I had big parties. Something in my mind was telling me that something wasn't right, but I could not put my finger on it. Until that dragon that became CR 25...

Encounter balance is more accurate (still not perfect) in 5ed. I have two groups of 6 players and so far, difficulty expectations are almost always right on the spot (barring too good or too bad luck...).

 

[Tony Vargas]

And in 3e you were encouraged to bring hirelings and followers...

Never seemed that way to me. There was the Leadership feat, but only the Cohort seemed at all useable.

 

[Maxperson]

Never seemed that way to me. There was the Leadership feat, but only the Cohort seemed at all useable.

Yeah. I never felt like it encouraged NPCs party members, either. Which was fine by me. I have enough to worry about without having NPCs in the party.

 

[Helldritch]

Oh, magic items were all over AD&D, yeah. Those treasure types and random tables, sure, you ended up with bushels of +1 swords and potions and protection scrolls, because the tables were weighted to weaker items, and to items of most use to Fighters &c, while wizardly items were comparatively rare (compared to the soon dirt-common +1 this that and theotherthing).

5e's magic-item independence does serve to make casters - and, that's every class and almost every sub-class - that much more critically important, though.

Remember that a 12th level magic user was able to craft wands and staves (if he had the knowledge, which was not that hard to acquire) and had been penning scrolls since level 5. These were not that costly to make.

As for the randomness of the treasures...
Yes it was a wee bit geared toward low end magical items. But as you progressed in levels, these same treasures were going toward the mage and high end magical items.

Line H (dragon hoard....) was quite generous on that end. And what about treasure F (aka vampire treasure)? 30% of any 3 (except swords and miscelanous weapons) + one potion and one scrolls? Or even the Z? 50% of any 3 magic items. 1ed was fairly generous with magic.

5e does make an attempt at balancing overall damage over that 6-8 encounter day, yes. OTOH, the amount of damage a magic-user could absorb was quite low compared to a 5e wizard, d4 HD, CON bonus topping out at +2, HD topping out at 11, vs d6 HD, 20 of 'em, and CON bonus up to +5. The beefiest possible 1e magic-user, at 20th level, would have 75 hps (0.000095367% chance of rolling all those 4s). A fairly average 14 CON wizard would have over 100, and could with comparably improbable HD rolls, flirt with 200.

Totally agree on that. That is why I always called the wizard a glass canon. Low AC, Low HP had to have a compensation. That compensation was huge damage and versatility. Now, our wizard Has low AC, not too low HP but at the cost of a huge drop in damage output and less spells per day at high level. The trade off is not that advantageous.

I think comparing level to level is fair, even though you'd likely advance much, much slower through those high levels in 1e.

I rose three group (in 1ed) to these levels. If you would do T1-4 with A1-4 and then GDQ 1-7 (with a splash of a random adventure here and there to bridge these adventures together) you could easily end up level 20 and do "WG4, Isle of the Ape". And maybe "H1, Mines of Bloodstone" where you would finally hit that level 21. Many people forget the 1gp = 1exp rule in previous edition. That could account for over 75% of all the experience an adventurer could have.

Me neither. As long as D&D is committed to maintaining the relative feel of the Big 4, rough single-target DPR parity over long days is the best that could be shot(npi) for.
In terms of single-target DPR, only. Blow up a few hordes of enemies, and it's a different story. And of course, the wizard's versatility is unmatched, thanks to neo-Vancian prep-and-cast-spontaneously.

Couldn't agree more on that.

 

[Helldritch]

Yeah. I never felt like it encouraged NPCs party members, either. Which was fine by me. I have enough to worry about without having NPCs in the party.

It felt like it was not encourage as charisma was not a huge thing (especially in 1ed). But 3e had the leadership feat. Yes only the cohort was usable but it could bring you much needed help from genuinely loyal followers. Leadership was so good, that some group were taking it with two different characters. This way they could have a whole second group as back up in case something went wrong with the first group.

 

[Fanaelialae]

True, but a targeted dispel was almost as good, and it was only 3rd level.

Perhaps. However, common debuff just resulted in a different problem, since it might or might not remove any given buff. If the player didn't have a detailed spreadsheet with every possible combination, you could be there all night while they recalculated everything.

 

[Maxperson]

Perhaps. However, common debuff just resulted in a different problem, since it might or might not remove any given buff. If the player didn't have a detailed spreadsheet with every possible combination, you could be there all night while they recalculated everything.

If they were buffing that much, they were wasting resources better spent on just ending a fight in a few rounds.

 

[Helldritch]

Perhaps. However, common debuff just resulted in a different problem, since it might or might not remove any given buff. If the player didn't have a detailed spreadsheet with every possible combination, you could be there all night while they recalculated everything.

No need of spread sheet for that. Base character sheet. Then a sheet to show all buffs common to all players. And a last one for personal buffs. (all were on plastified sheets which were easily erasable). It was only taking a few seconds to do.

 

[Maxperson]

It felt like it was not encourage as charisma was not a huge thing (especially in 1ed). But 3e had the leadership feat. Yes only the cohort was usable but it could bring you much needed help from genuinely loyal followers. Leadership was so good, that some group were taking it with two different characters. This way they could have a whole second group as back up in case something went wrong with the first group.

Just like I responded to @Fanaelialae, there were much better feats that made it so that you didn't need to go to a back-up group. For the entire run of 3e, 3.5, 4e and 5e(My various groups played 3.5 that long) until about a year ago, I only saw leadership taken as an RP feat, and then only once or twice.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Remember that a 12th level magic user was able to craft wands and staves (if he had the knowledge, which was not that hard to acquire) and had been penning scrolls since level 5. These were not that costly to make.

Scrolls & potions at 7th, too. But crafting rules left the DM a lot of room to screw with you. Nothing like 3e.

Yes it was a wee bit geared toward low end magical items. But as you progressed in levels, these same treasures were going toward the mage and high end magical items.

Maybe they were in modules, but the treasure tables, not so much. You'd get more items, but they were always weighted towards potions, armor/weapons, and the like. Rod/Staff/Wand actually kind rare.

Totally agree on that. That is why I always called the wizard a glass canon. Low AC, Low HP had to have a compensation. That compensation was huge damage and versatility.

It was a more extreme form of balance, back then, yes. The scale had very long arms.

….yeah, see, this is making me miss 1e.... I feel the beginnings of a bout of paleo-gaming coming on...