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

[Alzrius]

Something about the 3.0 books just feels more right than the 3.5 books — like they have more "TSR DNA" in them, that got squeezed out with the juices in the 3.5 revision.

I think there's a lot of truth in this. There are instances of earlier editions of D&D that come through much more strongly in 3.0 than in 3.5.

The issue with that, however, is that a lot of those instances don't work as well with the d20 System engine that 3.0 operated on. For instance, find familiar was a spell in earlier editions of D&D, and it was a spell in 3.0 also...but that meant that it could be put on a scroll or in a wand quite easily via item creation feats, which could then be used by anyone with ranks in the Use Magic Device skill. Now, that's not as egregious as it sounds, since 3.0 had restricted skills, limiting UMD to rogues and bards. But even so, you still had rogues and bards with their own familiars now (along with anyone who level-dipped into those classes, or prestige classes that offered UMD, thanks to the new multiclassing system), along with subsequent developments that allowed for gaining access to restricted skills.

In 3.5, by contrast, getting a familiar was a class feature, rather than a spell, making it virtually impossible for characters that weren't sorcerers or wizards to get familiars as freebies.

 

[Jack Daniel]

In 3.5, by contrast, getting a familiar was a class feature, rather than a spell, making it virtually impossible for characters that weren't sorcerers or wizards to get familiars as freebies.

That's interesting, but neither is there anything in the 2nd edition find familiar spell that stops a 2nd level bard (or a 10th level thief) from doing the same thing!

 

[Alzrius]

That's interesting, but neither is there anything in the 2nd edition find familiar spell that stops a 2nd level bard (or a 10th level thief) from doing the same thing!

A fair point, though not quite the same, given how making scrolls is tougher to begin with, and both classes have a flat percentage chance of failure (25% for thieves, 15% for bards) when reading scrolls; also, bards can't do that until they're 10th level either.

 

[Jack Daniel]

A 2e bard can just learn the spell…

 

[LongTimeLurker]

3/3.5e was the best edition for players but the worst edition to DM. It demands a high level of system mastery, especially if you are or play with optimizers. It's super easy as both a player and a DM to get lost among the myriad options. I DMed a TON of 3.5e and considered myself an expert back then, and even I found it difficult to DM characters much above 10th, 12th level.

 

[humble minion]

I DMed a TON of 3.5e and considered myself an expert back then, and even I found it difficult to DM characters much above 10th, 12th level.

I really liked 3.x on the whole, but it was a disaster to DM at high levels. The diverging maths (save DCs vs save modifiers, and attack rolls vs AC) and the size of modifiers overwhelming dice rolls sucked much of the uncertainty out of high-level combat, it became a calculated exercise in who could get their killer combo off first. And in the absence of reliable VTT tools, dealing on the fly with things like ability damage, which required an on-the-fly recalculation of half its target's stats, was a nightmare. And really high-level stat blocks literally went on for pages for a single monster. I was running a group through the Savage Tide AP, and some of the later modules in the path were reduced to a plot-light series of telegrams, simply because the vast statblocks took up so much space. And that's WITHOUT the details of their 20-odd spell-like abilities.

I had a blast playing it, but i wish I'd never ventured above about 10th level when i was behind the GM screen. It just seemed like playtesting in this space was reeeeeal perfunctory.

 

[teitan]

I think there's a lot of truth in this. There are instances of earlier editions of D&D that come through much more strongly in 3.0 than in 3.5.

The issue with that, however, is that a lot of those instances don't work as well with the d20 System engine that 3.0 operated on. For instance, find familiar was a spell in earlier editions of D&D, and it was a spell in 3.0 also...but that meant that it could be put on a scroll or in a wand quite easily via item creation feats, which could then be used by anyone with ranks in the Use Magic Device skill. Now, that's not as egregious as it sounds, since 3.0 had restricted skills, limiting UMD to rogues and bards. But even so, you still had rogues and bards with their own familiars now (along with anyone who level-dipped into those classes, or prestige classes that offered UMD, thanks to the new multiclassing system), along with subsequent developments that allowed for gaining access to restricted skills.

In 3.5, by contrast, getting a familiar was a class feature, rather than a spell, making it virtually impossible for characters that weren't sorcerers or wizards to get familiars as freebies.

Yeah but level dipping was hard in 3.0 because if your classes weren’t within two levels of each other you suffered experience penalties and you got hit with hard power curve issues around 8th level anyway without a good prestige class to compensate for the loss on both classes. If you were a monk or Paladin and took another class, RAI, you couldn’t take levels in monk or Paladin again.

 

[Lyxen]

2. The old culture around D&D 3.5 is gone, and people who I am gaming with make builds for fun that are interesting or for story reasons, and not because they are min/maxing to hell and back;

I don't think it's that clear, the "guides" for class building were born at that time, and they are still very much alive today, and depending on the forums, there are heavy debates about DPRs, Builds, RAW, etc., with still an undertone of complaining about the fuzziness of the 5e rules. Also, the player-centricity and CaS attitude that started at the time has drifted into player agency, making things muddier in 5e and really depend on your group.

 

[Lyxen]

3/3.5e was the best edition for players but the worst edition to DM. It demands a high level of system mastery, especially if you are or play with optimizers. It's super easy as both a player and a DM to get lost among the myriad options. I DMed a TON of 3.5e and considered myself an expert back then, and even I found it difficult to DM characters much above 10th, 12th level.

Indeed, one ruleslawyer at your table could grind down play to a complete stop, or pull out a really annoying rule that would make everything topple to the side. And I hated NPC/Monster Creation, took hours to make sure that all the things were computed in, so that the players could not complain about a +1 bonus not being at the right place. Played to level 20, but had to switch to a more freeform system to complete our major campaign (Multi-DMs, 10 years of play), because it was unmanageable.

 

[AtomicPope]

I played a lot of 3e, and liked it.

I didn't DM a lot of 3e, because I didn't like it.

The opposite is true of 4e and 5e. I play a lot less but DM all of the time, which is really my gripe. The characters were great in 3e, but it was terrible to DM for these CharOp builds. Both 4e and 5e are much better for DMs. I have a lot of fun with 5e now, and I'm not worried about making games that challenge every PC or let them shine. Even at 20th level we still have fun, challenging adventures and roleplaying.