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

[Voadam]

Personally, I changed all of the 2+Int classes that were not Int based to 4+Int and kept the x4 at first level.

Me too. As soon as Pathfinder came out with their no x4 at 1st level but class skills get a +3 bonus I thought it was great and adopted it. Much prefer that to 1/2 level rank cross class cap and the double skill point cost. Four skills maxxed is a decent base for non skill classes IMO.

 

[Alzrius]

Personally, I changed all of the 2+Int classes that were not Int based to 4+Int and kept the x4 at first level.

My change was to make it so that every class had a minimum of 4 + Int mod. skill points per level. I'm sorry, but 2 + Int mod. is way too low, especially for classes that don't put a premium on their Intelligence score.

 

[Autumnal]

Call of Cthulhu 7th edition does a nice thing with skills. Normally, skill points are based on Education. But where a profession doesn’t really rely on that, they’re based on stats that do apply. So physically oriented professions get their skill points from Strength and Dexterity, ones with a strong element of endurance and survival throws Constitution into the mix, and so on. If I were writing Bruce’s PHB, I’d do that (If, that is, I didn’t just chuck skills in favor of a system with ability scores and backgrounds.)

 

[DeadlyUematsu]

I DMd and played in literally several dozen campaigns that reached those levels and had a blast, as did my players and those who played along side of me. It was a very playable space. You just couldn't play it like you did at low levels. The kinds of adventures had to change to keep the challenge going.

I DMed and played in several dozen campaigns that reached those levels too and I disagree. Yes, most adventures had to changed but if that was the only problem then more people would run high-level games and it's very clear that that's not the only problem.

 

[Maxperson]

I DMed and played in several dozen campaigns that reached those levels too and I disagree. Yes, most adventures had to changed but if that was the only problem then more people would run high-level games and it's very clear that that's not the only problem.

Correlation does not equal causation. People don't make it to high level for a myriad of reasons, the vast majority of which are not because high level doesn't work.

Since it did in fact work for me and many others I played with, you cannot be correct as a general rule. It didn't work for you is something I will accept. I just plain didn't work is objectively false, since it did work for a lot of us.

 

[DeadlyUematsu]

Correlation does not equal causation. People don't make it to high level for a myriad of reasons, the vast majority of which are not because high level doesn't work.

Since it did in fact work for me and many others I played with, you cannot be correct as a general rule. It didn't work for you is something I will accept. I just plain didn't work is objectively false, since it did work for a lot of us.

So I can't disagree? I have to be wrong because you experienced otherwise?

I could parrot your very own words back at you.

I could point out that the actual 3e playtest didn't really cover those levels and Living Greyhawk feedback really didn't improve that range with 3.5e either.

I could also point out the absurd variance in numeric capacities at higher levels, the lack of material support, the effort it takes to make the game function because of this lack of support and wide variance in numbers are problems that reduce playability.

I could also point out the necessity of magic and magical countermeasures at high level reduces the range of scenarios and protagonists quite a bit outside of fiat which makes the game outright unplayable for some character types or making them rather secondary to the play experience.

I could also point out that there are literally polls on this very forum that chart where people (both DMs and players) ended their campaigns in 3.5e but I don't know... even when they trended to a level 11-15 cutoff, would that convince you since the number of voters are so small as to be irrelevant?

I could point out that the community has recurrent conversations about the lack of high level D&D games (as opposed to the opposite) and while everyone seems to remember real life intrusions, fatigue, and schedule conflicts as the reasons those games do not occur, the reason people conveniently forget is that the game is unwieldly and unbalanced at those levels.

 

[Maxperson]

So I can't disagree? I have to be wrong because you experienced otherwise?

If you are claiming that it's unplayable as a general thing, yes you have to be wrong because I experienced otherwise. If you're just speaking for you, then I accept that it was unplayable for you.

I could point out that the actual 3e playtest didn't really cover those levels and Living Greyhawk feedback really didn't approve that range with 3.5e either.

Not relevant. It was playable for me and literally several dozen others that I saw in my immediate games and know of several dozen more, so what happened before that doesn't matter. I've only met a few who think like you do.

I could also point out the absurd variance in numeric capacities at higher levels, the lack of material support, the effort it takes to make the game function because of this lack of support and wide variance in numbers are problems that reduce playability.

If you are talking epic levels, then sure. Lack of support(at least good support) was true. If you're talking 12-20th level, there was literally TONS of support.

I could also point out the necessity of magic and magical countermeasures at high level reduces the range of scenarios and protagonists quite a bit outside of fiat which makes the game outright unplayable for some character types or making them rather secondary to the play experience.

I thought you varied things up when you DM'd it. If you had, then that would not be an issue.

I could also point out that there are literally polls on this very forum that chart where people (both DMs and players) ended their campaigns in 3.5e but I don't know... even when they trended to a level 11-15 cutoff, would that convince you since the number of voters are so small as to be irrelevant?

And now we are back to correlation does not equal causation. Most games ended early because people moved, PCs died, life got busy, etc.

I could point out that the community has recurrent conversations about the lack of high level D&D games (as opposed to the opposite) and while everyone seems to remember real life intrusions, fatigue, and schedule conflicts as the reasons those games do not occur, the reason people conveniently forget is that the game is unwieldly and unbalanced at those levels.

And I can point out that the vocal minority is usually the voice most commonly heard, because the happy folks don't bother. I could also point out how the vast majority of players don't come to forums like this.

You don't have an acceptable or unbiased sample. So sure, there were people who felt the game was unwieldy and who don't like game that are imbalanced. All of 3e was imbalanced by the way. Not just the higher levels. The existence of those people, though, still can't possibly make what you are claiming true. The existence of the great many of us for whom the game worked just fine up to level 20 disproves your claim as a general thing.

 

[Yora]

Me too. As soon as Pathfinder came out with their no x4 at 1st level but class skills get a +3 bonus I thought it was great and adopted it. Much prefer that to 1/2 level rank cross class cap and the double skill point cost. Four skills maxxed is a decent base for non skill classes IMO.

Something I noticed making several generic low level NPCs with that system is that at 2nd and 3rd level, it becomes really attractive to put your points into new class skills instead of advancing your skills from 1st level.
Putting that first rank into a class skill gets you 3 ranks for free.

That +4 to a skill becomes increasingly less helpful once you get your main skills up to +16 and the like. But if you expect to stay at lower levels for a longer time, having that broader range of skills can be really attractive for the low price of missing out just 1 rank on another skill.

 

[Voadam]

Something I noticed making several generic low level NPCs with that system is that at 2nd and 3rd level, it becomes really attractive to put your points into new class skills instead of advancing your skills from 1st level.
Putting that first rank into a class skill gets you 3 ranks for free.

That +4 to a skill becomes increasingly less helpful once you get your main skills up to +16 and the like. But if you expect to stay at lower levels for a longer time, having that broader range of skills can be really attractive for the low price of missing out just 1 rank on another skill.

I saw that too and saw it as a plus to the system in encouraging less hyperspecialization and more development of a little competency in more areas.

In Pathfinder there was more of a mechanical benefit and incentive to throwing a skill point into an untrained skill than in 3.0/3.5.

Taking my example from before, the math incentives change significantly in having five skill points to invest, it is a choice between having five skills at +4 versus one at +8 and four at +0.

So even for higher level characters there was an incentive to not have each of your skills be maxxed out but save the least important/character relevant one and instead of bumping that up develop some basic competencies in other things by spreading that skill point around each level of advancement instead.

This way your 15th level character is likely to have +4 in a bunch of secondary skills instead of just +0 in everything past their most important priorities. Even for a character with just two skill points per level being competent in one and OK in 15 can be an attractive mechanical option over being competent in just two skill areas and being absolutely terrible in the more than 20+ other skills. As a character development strategy it also allows adding skills as appropriate based on the experience of the character, picking up knowledge arcana after dealing with outsiders, picking up hide after having to stealth into a place, etc.

 

[Yora]

What about Synergy bonuses?

They are basically free +2s, which are always nice. But this feels to me like something that players would most likely forget to apply at least half of the time. Especially those that you can't just put in your skill modifier because it only applies to certain specific uses of the skill.

Is it really important enough to try remembering it, or is it something that you best just tell the players to completely ignore and not deal with it?