D&D 3.x Edition Experience - Did/Do you Play 3rd Edtion D&D? How Was/Is it?

[jmartkdr2]

Thanks. This mostly for 3e, maybe 4e?

The level 6 part would be changed form edition to edition (ie for 4e I'd say stop at 10th, for 5e 6th might be fine), but the basic idea is workable.

 

[Richards]

"Johnathan"? Were you signing off with that or is it a reference to something?

The former - a habit I got into long ago.

Johnathan <--- (There, see? I did it again!)

 

[Son of the Serpent]

The former - a habit I got into long ago.

Johnathan <--- (There, see? I did it again!)

Huh...

Ok.

 

[3catcircus]

So - I've played every edition starting with B/X/BECMI and AD&D 1e. I love the tropes behind the earlier editions (different xp progressions, race/level limits, etc.) 3.x made the math easier (positive AC progression, BAB, etc.), but introduced way too much player choice, resulting in long drawn out discussions about "builds" that totally loses the intent of the differences of each class, prestige class, etc.

I would have loved to have 3.x include race/level limits, different xp progressions for base/core classes, and do dual-classing and multi-classing like AD&D 1e. It would have cut down player choices to the bare essentials needed to flesh out a PC, which would in turn make the DM's life easier.

I also would have loved to have seen 3.x with a greatly reduced quantity of feats. We've never needed feats to allow PCs to fire a bow from horseback, or allow high-enough level fighters to attack multiple opponents each round before 3.x came along - and then suddenly all kinds of things that previously were based on player-DM agency suddenly required a permission slip in the form of a feat tax.

I really would love to have seen 3.x take the approach that Spycraft's Shadowforce Archer did for their psionic classes - feats as an entry requirement, but then the class abilities being skill-based.

For all of those foibles, I think 3.x did a fine job of reinvigorating an interest in D&D. The OGL made it so that interest turned into inspiration turned into lots of really cool resources. I still remember Steve's Spell Sheets, eroForge/SpellForge, DMBuddy, multiple 3.x conversions of classic modules, etc.

 

[jmartkdr2]

But i find it quite strange its not been cast for any other edition. That feels like it requires some sort of explanation.

Hypothesis: anyone who's playing 2e (or earlier) right now had to make that happen proactively. This weeds out anyone who wouldn't choose it for themselves, because if they didn't like it, they know they have the tools to find another game.

As we get to more recent and popular editions, there will be people who are just joining the game that's closets to them and it happens to be X edition.

 

[Son of the Serpent]

Hypothesis: anyone who's playing 2e (or earlier) right now had to make that happen proactively. This weeds out anyone who wouldn't choose it for themselves, because if they didn't like it, they know they have the tools to find another game.

As we get to more recent and popular editions, there will be people who are just joining the game that's closets to them and it happens to be X edition.

This is very sound logic. I suspect you are right. You get a gold

 

[Quartz]

I loved 3E / 3.5E. But it did need management. Such as grouping all those different bonuses into overgroups ("So you've got a +2 Axiomatic bonus, a +2 Holy Bonus, a +2 Sacred bonus, and a +3 Str bonus? The first three are Divine so don't stack, so you get a total bonus of +5.") , simplifying saves (everyone got +1 per 2 levels round down and classes gave a class bonus), periodic culling of items (often via Disjunction), and so on. I seldom bothered with the minutiae of monsters - too much effort - and just jotted down the bare essentials.

 

[TiwazTyrsfist]

Oh yes! I loved that about item creation! It was a great framework to just slap stuff together and see what popped out. I found that process to be very inspirational, and I still do that conceptually, no matter the system.
I think 3e is a nice system for learning to tinker, imo, because it has so many moving parts.

Exactly. My favorite was the "Sword of Reincarnation"
It was a +1 longsword enchanted with Reincarnate so that any creature killed by the sword was then reincarnated as per the Druid spell.

"The good news is, You're still alive. The less good news is", rolls d%%, "you're now a Goblin."

 

[Eyes of Nine]

Crazy but I managed and then owned a game store from 1995 to 2006. And I NEVER PLAYED 3/3.5/PF! Made plenty of money off of it and the 3p OGL stuff; but never played or ran. I think it's because during this time I had a bi-weekly GURPS game for most of it and we never considered switching to D&D.

At this point, I like 5e enough that I don't see ever going back and trying it tbh. I'm looking for simpler games for my players at this point; and as a player I am not super interested in all the optimizing needed to have an effective character in 3.x

 

[3catcircus]

I loved 3E / 3.5E. But it did need management. Such as grouping all those different bonuses into overgroups ("So you've got a +2 Axiomatic bonus, a +2 Holy Bonus, a +2 Sacred bonus, and a +3 Str bonus? The first three are Divine so don't stack, so you get a total bonus of +5.") , simplifying saves (everyone got +1 per 2 levels round down and classes gave a class bonus), periodic culling of items (often via Disjunction), and so on. I seldom bothered with the minutiae of monsters - too much effort - and just jotted down the bare essentials.

Only issue here is those particular abilities do stack because they aren't divine bonuses. Axiomatic makes a weapon lawfully-aligned and infused with the power of law. Holy makes good-aligned and imbued with holy power. Sacred sheathes the weapon in positive energy. The stacking bonuses for these three actually vary depending on the target, but the +2 bonuses are only for purposes of costing the creation of a magic weapon.

Axiomatic weapons bypass DR and does an additional 2d6 damage to chaotic targets.

Holy weapons bypass DR and does an additional 2d6 damage to evil targets.

Sacred weapons are good aligned for purposes of bypassing DR, do 1d6 additional damage to undead, and 2d6 additional damage to outsiders.

Let's say a PC with a +3 Str bonus wields a weapon with these three abilities against a demon - say - a marilith. The marilith is a chaotic evil extraplanar outsider with DR 10/cold iron or good.

The PC gets a +3 Str bonus to attack and damage. The Axiomatic effect doesn't bypass the DR but does do 2d6 additional damage since the marilith is chaotic. The Holy and Sacred effects both can bypass DR and they both do an additional 2d6 damage since the marilith is both evil and an outsider. Result: + 3 attack bonus, +6d6+3 damage bonus, and no damage reduction.

Let's say it was against a vampire. Always evil, DR 10/silver and magic. +3 Str bonus. Axiomatic = no effect. Holy does 2d6 damage but does not bypass DR. Sacred does an additional 1d6 but does not bypass DR.