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

[Lanefan]

3e was infinitely more balanced than 2e.

Dubious claim. The difference is that 3e was designed with balance in mind (sort of) and thus one can debate whether or not this intention was successful.

Balance wasn't much of a consideration pre-3e, except in the broadest of terms, so to complain thusly:

2e didn't even have the concept of balance. It literally didn't even TRY to balance anything.

... isn't really fair.

There was absolutely no balance in 2e, because nobody tried to balance anything. You had races that were far superior to others, mechanically, that the only "balancing" factor was level limits that wouldn't even come up in most games. You had spellcasters "I win" spells that meant that even a 1st level Wizard could execute a Total Party Kill on an entire party of NPC's of the same level. You had standard monsters that were practically a TPK waiting to happen if they were ever used as-written.

Sounds balanced to me - both the PCs and the monsters could wipe each other out much more easily.

All it means is that combat might not always be the best answer to a situation...

You had literally no guidelines or framework for what kind of equipment or treasure a party above 1st level should have or what kind of challenges they should be facing.

Feature, not bug.

Particularly when you throw in the fact that in 2e the power curve was much flatter than 3e, meaning that a) yes you could throw something really nasty at a party and they'd still have a chance of beating it and b) lower-level monsters remained a viable threat longer into the campaign.

That same power-curve issue also forced PCs in 3e parties to all be the same level, where in 2e you could viably have a party with a fairly wide level range (maybe plus-minus 2 from the party average) and still run just fine.

3e, while flawed, was far, FAR more balanced and tried to make the various races and classes similar in power level.

The operative word being 'tried'; with the end result being that the weaker classes from 2e (e.g. Cleric) got way overpowered in 3e, while good classes in 2e (e.g. Ranger) got hosed.

 

[haakon1]

That same power-curve issue also forced PCs in 3e parties to all be the same level, where in 2e you could viably have a party with a fairly wide level range (maybe plus-minus 2 from the party average) and still run just fine.

Forced? I’ve been DMing 3.5e for 17 years, and I was never “forced“ to do that. I recently had a party that was 5th-10th level, in the Temple of Elemental Evil. It worked, even when they picked up a 2nd & 3rd level NPC’s to help. Doesn’t feel that different from AD&D to me In that way.

The way the XP work - CR relative to Character Level - brings them together quickly. The 5th level Cleric is now 8th, while the 10th level Monk is still 10th. The Monk began as an AD&D character in 1996 ...

 

[haakon1]

Thinking about time as the current version & today’s Amazon price of a “Like New“ PHB, as a way to look at quality ...

I (of course) think Steven Colbert’s “the market has spoken” proves my favorite (3.5e) is the best, with my second favorite - AD&D - looking pretty good too, though edged out by 2e. But I’m sure there are others of interpreting the data. Sure looks bad for my least favorite (4e) though.

AD&D was active 1978-1989 $104.
2e AD&D 1989-2000. $124.
3e 2000-2003 $20, or -2008 with 3.5e $170, or -2019 with PF1 (no PHB)
4e 2008-2014 $9
5e 2014-? $38

 

[teitan]

Thinking about time as the current version & today’s Amazon price of a “Like New“ PHB, as a way to look at quality ...

I (of course) think Steven Colbert’s “the market has spoken” proves my favorite (3.5e) is the best, with my second favorite - AD&D - looking pretty good too, though edged out by 2e. But I’m sure there are others of interpreting the data. Sure looks bad for my least favorite (4e) though.

AD&D was active 1978-1989 $104.
2e AD&D 1989-2000. $124.
3e 2000-2003 $20, or -2008 with 3.5e $170, or -2019 with PF1 (no PHB)
4e 2008-2014 $9
5e 2014-? $38

Amazon secondary market prices aren’t a trustworthy indicator of trends. Many of those vendors’ products kinda sit there. 3e products are often priced as if they are rare when they’re fairly common. Price Essentials and you’ll see a spike in 4e prices when compared to core 4e. The DM kit has true market rarity along with the Monster Vault.

3.5 flattens out about 25-30 dollars, so cover price, per book.

Also comparing it to 5e, well 5e outsells 3e and every other edition and the secondary market that will inevitably crop up will be reflective of market rarity and no popularity.

 

[Gladius Legis]

The only class that suffered in 3.0 was the ranger.

The Paladin was just as worthless in 3.0, and unlike the Ranger didn't get any improvements worth mentioning for 3.5. The 3.0 Monk was also quite bad, problem was the 3.5 Monk's "fixes" didn't help much.

 

[Viking Bastard]

My RPGing started with BECMI but I was so young that I didn't really understand the rules. I got the 2e core books but I just found them impenetrable. At the same time I tried various other rpgs which all had simple to understand and straightforward mechanics, so that's where I gravitated.

But I loved D&D. I loved the feel of it. I loved the odd kitchen sink lore and gaminess. I spent a lot of time trying to recreate those D&D-isms with other systems but it never felt quite right.

When 3e was announced, I was very intrigued. Then I found Eric Noah's news page and I ate up every update. I loved what I saw: the streamlined mechanics, the lessening of restrictions, etc. And I loved reading the discussions back and forth about it all on these forums.

And then it came out and it was everything I ever wanted. It was perfect. Never been happier with a RPG.

Yknow, until I wasn't.

I grew frustrated with it over time. Kept running into things that I felt didn't work as advertised. There were too many things to keep track of — rules, modifiers, exceptions — during play. And everything felt so interconnected that if I tried to house rule/streamline things it would butterfly across the system, having too many unintended consequences or throwing things out of whack. Over time I also grew an intense dislike for multiclassing and became alienated from the ever increasing crunch focus of online discussion.

Its been so long that I don't really remember much what those things were specifically, but during the last stretch of 3e we had slimmed everything back down to the core books and we'd play a series of short campaigns through levels 5-10, where I found my personal sweet spot of PC power vs complexity in play. And then we eventually just stopped playing and moved onto other things. All together I played 3e mostly for 5-6 years, which is a record that seems like 5e is gonna be the first to break.

But I don't think it's a bad game. I think it's pretty good. It laid the foundation of modern D&D, for good or worse: I love the core mechanics it established but also feel we're, for example, stuck with feats and it's version of skills as base assumptions just because they were in 3e.

 

[teitan]

The Paladin was just as worthless in 3.0, and unlike the Ranger didn't get any improvements worth mentioning for 3.5. The 3.0 Monk was also quite bad, problem was the 3.5 Monk's "fixes" didn't help much.

That’s an opinion. My players and I had zero issues with the Pally and I don’t recall seeing many complaints about them or the monk. Just the Ranger. Even looking back on these forums to see there aren’t any. You’re just showing off edition warrior tendencies here.

 

[billd91]

That’s an opinion. My players and I had zero issues with the Pally and I don’t recall seeing many complaints about them or the monk. Just the Ranger. Even looking back on these forums to see there aren’t any. You’re just showing off edition warrior tendencies here.

I don't think I'd say there are edition warrior tendencies here. The monk really did have some weaknesses (flurry of misses) and the paladin's smite power wasn't exactly a lot to write home about (hence the number of revisions to smite powers since then, particularly in Pathfinder and D&D 5e). The addition of more swift action spells for both the paladin and ranger in later books was also a nice boost that was kind of lacking early on. The paladin was, in no way, as poorly developed as the ranger in 3.0 and so didn't need to change quite as much - but I do believe developments since have definitely improved on it.

 

[haakon1]

That’s an opinion. My players and I had zero issues with the Pally and I don’t recall seeing many complaints about them or the monk. Just the Ranger.

I agree. Ranger is the only class we tinker with. Present tense because I am still running 3.5e, 17 years in. I very much enjoyed playing a Paladin in AD&D and 3/3.5e. Do not recommend in 4e. No experience of that class in 2e or 5e.

I also have a player who loves his monk. Ranger is interesting because it’s so popular, but doesn’t give the people what they want. Favored Enemy is weird ... spellcasting some players like, some don’t. I stole rules from PF as alternatives - the only class I did that for.

I suspect Paladin hate (in any edition) is mostly from people who just aren’t interested in playing a Paladin, people who want to play CN/evil and don’t like anyone who might cramp their Joker style, and people who imagine mean DM will cramp their style.

 

[haakon1]

I loved D&D. I loved the feel of it. I loved the odd kitchen sink lore and gaminess. I spent a lot of time trying to recreate those D&D-isms with other systems but it never felt quite right.

When 3e was announced, I was very intrigued. ... I loved what I saw: the streamlined mechanics, the lessening of restrictions, etc.

And then it came out and it was everything I ever wanted. It was perfect. Never been happier with a RPG.

Same for me. 3e to me is perfect - 100% real D&D feel, but cleaned up and rational.

Yknow, until I wasn't.
....
during the last stretch of 3e we had slimmed everything back down to the core books and we'd play a series of short campaigns through levels 5-10, where I found my personal sweet spot of PC power vs complexity in play.
....
But I don't think it's a bad game. I think it's pretty good. It laid the foundation of modern D&D, for good or worse: I love the core mechanics it established but also feel we're, for example, stuck with feats and it's version of skills as base assumptions just because they were in 3e.

You found the secret! 3.5e Core Books is the platonic ideal of D&D, and works best in levels 1-about 10, maybe 12. That’s assuming you lIke low-level D&D, which I wholeheartedly do. Fireball is awesome, but when you get into 4th and 5th level spells, PC’s are a little too much for normal adventures, IMHO.

Just as pure 1e AD&D Core Books is awesome, if you can deal with the messiness and ignore a lot of it (weapon speed?) - 3e is the streamlined version.