D&D 3E/3.5 3rd Edition Revisited - Better play with the power of hindsight?

[AMP]

The strength of 3.X lies in the sheer volume of material which is available - and that's only counting official products. When you include 3PP then it becomes astronomical.

I think that with a game so broad, you really need to decide what you want to exclude, and by only including the elements you want, you can really create a unique feel and experience. And by including everything, you can’t really make something logical and coherent. Excluding even core elements is possible because there are so many other options. Don't want Clerics of Druids? - ban them, there's plenty of alternatives to choose from to fill that niche. Don't want Dwarves? Gnomes? Elves? - no problem.

In terms of what it's good at? Well, anything, really. But it does take a fair bit of work to get to that point, and I think that investment is kind of unavoidable. That said, once you've decided which elements you want to include in your palette, I've found the only real obstacle is physical in the number of books you need to cross-reference.

This post right here. You nailed it. Any gripe with any system can be eliminated by eliminating what you don't like within it. The DM disallows it IS A RULE if you want it to be.

 

[payn]

This post right here. You nailed it. Any gripe with any system can be eliminated by eliminating what you don't like within it. The DM disallows it IS A RULE if you want it to be.

I think back in 3E/PF1 heyday, it was a pretty common complaint that folks wanted to use any source available for their PC. I do think a bit of that was true when 3E was D&D and later when PF1 was Pathfinder. I find now that players are much more willing to work with and ask GMs on what is available when starting a campaign.

 

[Yora]

Okay.

Kind of.

Buuuut...

As GM you still have to identify which parts are the one that you actually don't like. Because often the spot where you see the smoke coming out is not actually the spot where the friction happens. To improve the gameplay experience, we often have to address the cause and not only the symptom. Especially with a system as complex as this, that has so many moving parts that are affecting each other.

Which I guess is basically the idea I was having with this thread. I feel that a lot about the discussions that happened about the game, or at least the ones I was seeing, were mostly about complaining about the results that people got with the game, rarely trying to identify what exactly on the mechanical side caused those experiences to happen.

 

[Retreater]

Best of luck with your revisiting the system. For me, 3.x/PF1 is the one edition that I would never want to play or DM again.

• Diagonal movement
• Ticking off individual boxes (and "half boxes" for untrained) skill proficiencies
• Grappling, tripping, disarming, swallow hole, and other combat maneuvers
• Flat-footed, touch, and regular ACs
• Magic item Christmas trees
• Buff smorgasbords before combats

Which is a shame, because I'd love to use the adventures from that era.
So, what would I do to get around these issues?

• Throw out diagonal movement (or possibly just play on hexes)
• Give x number of skill proficiencies and just assume they're at max rank
• Maybe take the CMB from PF1 and go with that?
• Make AC one number
• Put in inherent bonuses equal to what the baseline assumption of magic items is
• Add a concentration mechanic for buffs or otherwise prevent stacking

 

[Voadam]

I think back in 3E/PF1 heyday, it was a pretty common complaint that folks wanted to use any source available for their PC. I do think a bit of that was true when 3E was D&D and later when PF1 was Pathfinder. I find now that players are much more willing to work with and ask GMs on what is available when starting a campaign.

I saw a lot of games that were core only, core only and specific others, any WotC, or core only and ask for specific others (WotC or OGL).

 

[AMP]

I think back in 3E/PF1 heyday, it was a pretty common complaint that folks wanted to use any source available for their PC. I do think a bit of that was true when 3E was D&D and later when PF1 was Pathfinder. I find now that players are much more willing to work with and ask GMs on what is available when starting a campaign.

I always make sure my players, when they say they'll play, know I have final say on what can enter the campaign, full stop. I mean, my game world, my game. That's always been my method of approach over my 30+ years of running games. Lately I compile the resources they can use before anything begins and hand it to them, and have a caveat at the bottom to ask me if they want to use something that does not appear on the approved list. Just because it's in an official book, core or otherwise, does not mean I will instantly allow it if it does not fit the campaign's feel or trajectory.

 

[payn]

So, what would I do to get around these issues?

Lets see what you got.

• Throw out diagonal movement (or possibly just play on hexes)

This is a good one!

• Give x number of skill proficiencies and just assume they're at max rank

When do you get these skill proficiencies? One of the best things about 3E is you actually engage the skill system every level instead of just once in awhile. Also, you can pump you ability scores and get untold number of magic items so a proficiency system would take quite a bit of work to be useable.

• Maybe take the CMB from PF1 and go with that?

This was a good take from Pathfinder. Not perfect but it does simplify a good number of maneuvers.

• Make AC one number

This has a number of issues with the base system. Casters would never hit their targets, or martials always would. You would be constantly adjusting the system.

• Put in inherent bonuses equal to what the baseline assumption of magic items is

I am strong proponent of magic items that do cool things and do less numbers. I think this character built in assumption has already been done in Pathfinder so it would be easy enough to implement.

• Add a concentration mechanic for buffs or otherwise prevent stacking

This would leave the PCs desperately under protected with 3E system assumptions. Like the single AC and Skill prof ideas, I think you would adjusting the system from here until times end to make it work right.

 

[Yora]

I like the Pathfinder skill points. (Or at least how I remember them.)

One skill point gets you one rank in any skill you want.
Maximum is 1 rank per character level.
If a skill with any points in it is a class skill for any of your classes, you get a +3 bonus.
No 4x skill points at 1st character level.

For the class skills that you want to max out, this produces exactly the same values as the standard 3rd edition skill points system. Which probably will be most skills for most characters.
And I think until you get to high levels, the difference for cross-class skills would be probably negligible.

 

[Retreater]

@payn , I realize my solutions would cause problems. This is why I won't play PF1 or 3.x again. This is the bare minimum of what I'd need to do so I don't lose my mind trying to operate within the system.
I get nauseated when I hear my friends who still play PF1 talk about the order of operations of buffing that they plan out before most fights, spending a good hour planning out spells and only to have a dreadful time during the fight bean counting every +1 bonus. For me, I'd rather stay at home and snuggle my dogs.

 

[Yora]

Speaking of which, I think a simple practice that should make the game more fun without needing any rules changes is to really limit the number of magic items that only give a fixed passive bonus to stats.

Ring of protection +1. Cloak of resistance +1. Gloves of Dexterity +2.

A player could forget to apply the modifier from such an item for the entire campaign and nobody would ever notice any difference. It increases the amount of bookkeeping while not affecting the fiction of the game. That's just character fine tuning. Not introducing new capabilities

When you hand out such items, make them have a big impact on stats.

Ring of protection +4. Belt of Giant's Strength +6.

But most of the time, it will be just better to simply concentrate on magic items that grant characters new abilities that they don't already have. Stuff that lets them do actions they could not otherwise do. That's magical.

A ring of minor fire resistance that absorbs 10 points of fire damage is not all bad. But with 20 or 30 points of reduction, you can get into all kinds of new shenanigans by walking straight into fire and laugh it off.