D&D 3E/3.5 Edition Experience - Did/Do you Play 3rd Edtion D&D? How Was/Is it?

[Maggan]

3e is an Old Game now?

Geez, that crept up on me ...

 

[DammitVictor]

3e is an Old Game now?

Geez, that crept up on me ...

Published twenty years ago. Out of print for thirteen.

 

[delericho]

I played 3.x for many years, and absolutely loved it. It was, and is, my favourite edition of the game.

But...

Unfortunately, as time went on it became apparent that 3e had some fundamental issues. In hindsight, I'm also convinced that from the publication of "Sword & Fist" onward, almost every supplement for the game actually made it worse. And I'm further convinced that the less you dig into the maths behind the game, and especially the less the players dig into the maths behind the game, the better it is.

The upshot of all of that is that I very much doubt I would ever run 3e again, and very much doubt that I would enjoy the experience. Which is really quite unfortunate - 5e just doesn't sing to me the way 3e did, but when running it I can expend my effort on running it, rather than constantly tinkering in pursuit of an imaginary perfection.

If that makes any sense at all.

 

[Jester David]

I remember discovering 3e by accident. I went to a local comic shop and saw a display with the PHB. "OMFG WTF there's a 3rd Edition?!?"
I came back a week later after payday and bought the core rulebooks.

I loved it and was super happy with how it took the rules of 2e and made them consistent.
I played 3e for a couple years, running a couple lengthy homegames.

Then I started playing Living Greyhawk and I realized I only actually knew half the rules...
There were so very, very many rules I didn't know or only half knew.

After two years of playing LG I was sick of that edition. The flaws became glaring and the edition was deeply problematic. Play required numerous house rules to work. I was excited at the idea of 4th Edition and the fixes to a deeply flawed game.
Then 4e came out and it was completely not what I wanted...
So I moved to Pathfinder and kept effectively playing a hacked version of 3e for four more years.

 

[Lanefan]

The only feats that should be allowed are those that add flavor or open up new abilities. Feats that do nothing but provide a mechanical benefit, such as weapon focus, should have never been part of the rules.

I'm almost the other way around: things like weapon focus and weapon spec. should have been kept* and 95% of the rest scrapped.

* - ideally as baked-in benefits for certain martial classes rather than selectable feats.

 

[teitan]

I think that one of the dullest things about 3rd Edition was the feats. They were a cool idea, but nearly every feat in the game could be distilled to "here's a way to get a +X bonus to <thing>," usually an attack roll or armor class. Most feats otherwise contributed nothing to the character at all.

Sometimes, one of us would try to add nuance and flavor, but that would be completely forgotten after one gaming session because it just didn't matter a whole lot (and also because by 10th level, it was impossible to remember that "special unique flavor" for each of the two dozen or so feats that everyone in the group had selected.)

I think that 5E helped both of my issues with feats by making them a lot more interesting, and making them a lot more scarce.

5e helped my problem with feats by making them optional rules!

 

[teitan]

I played 3.x for many years, and absolutely loved it. It was, and is, my favourite edition of the game.

But...

Unfortunately, as time went on it became apparent that 3e had some fundamental issues. In hindsight, I'm also convinced that from the publication of "Sword & Fist" onward, almost every supplement for the game actually made it worse. And I'm further convinced that the less you dig into the maths behind the game, and especially the less the players dig into the maths behind the game, the better it is.

The upshot of all of that is that I very much doubt I would ever run 3e again, and very much doubt that I would enjoy the experience. Which is really quite unfortunate - 5e just doesn't sing to me the way 3e did, but when running it I can expend my effort on running it, rather than constantly tinkering in pursuit of an imaginary perfection.

If that makes any sense at all.

I agree 100% except I would play 3.0 again. With just the core rules it doesn't get as overwhelming as even 3.5 with all the feats in there. I would just make small tweaks to the ranger by allowing them to choose the archery feats or two weapon fighting feats.

 

[Zardnaar]

3e is an Old Game now?

Geez, that crept up on me ...

Put it this way. When 3E came out we were at a point closer in time to 1E than we are now when 3.5 went out of print.

The 3E sucks narrative is generally only pushed in online forums. It had continuous support via Paizo until 2019. 19 year run.

 

[Eyes of Nine]

Put it this way. When 3E came out we were at a point close to time to 1E than we are tow to when 3.5 went out if print.

The 3E sucks narrative is generally only pushed in online forums. It had continuous support via Paizo until 2019. 19 year run.

Huh, yup.

AD&D 2e released 1989, 3e released 2000 - 11 years.
4e released 2008 (presumptive end of 3.5), today - 12 years. Ain't that a pip.

 

[teitan]

Put it this way. When 3E came out we were at a point close to time to 1E than we are tow to when 3.5 went out if print.

The 3E sucks narrative is generally only pushed in online forums. It had continuous support via Paizo until 2019. 19 year run.

Exactly. It’s a good game when you houserule and limit options... like every edition of D&D!