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

[TwoSix]

I absolutely hate the game design of many of the later classes and it discards the AD&D setting flavour for which I am playing D&D rather than another system, so that's going to be a no from me, chief. IMO that suggestion one where the 'cure' is worse than the ailment. I'm inclined to keep most of the later 3.5 classes out of the game regardless of their relative balance. Too close to 4e for me. I'd make selective PF1 content swaps instead.

<shrug>

I prefer later 3.5 precisely because it's moving in a flavor direction towards the then-impending 4e, and away from classic AD&Disms.

I'll take warblades, binders, and beguilers over fighter, wizard, and cleric every day of the week.

 

[Neonchameleon]

<shrug>

I prefer later 3.5 precisely because it's moving in a flavor direction towards the then-impending 4e, and away from classic AD&Disms.

I'll take warblades, binders, and beguilers over fighter, wizard, and cleric every day of the week.

Meanwhile I'm in camp c. I'll take warblades, binders and beguilers or 2e fighters or AD&D wizards over 3.X fighters and wizards (or pre-4e clerics)

 

[VHawkwinter]

<shrug>

I prefer later 3.5 precisely because it's moving in a flavor direction towards the then-impending 4e, and away from classic AD&Disms.

I'll take warblades, binders, and beguilers over fighter, wizard, and cleric every day of the week.

Yep. Nothing wrong with that preference, but it doesn't give me what I want from D&D, that's a different game, and not one I'm really interested in.

I want D&D for 2e setting book compatibility, Forgotten Realms compatibility (as in, you could rebuild at least most of the characters from the FR novels published over the first 20 years of FR novel publication and have their capabilities), and pretty "simulationist" game mechanics. Late 3e splats and 4e give me none of that.

 

[VHawkwinter]

Meanwhile I'm in camp c. I'll take warblades, binders and beguilers or 2e fighters or AD&D wizards over 3.X fighters and wizards (or pre-4e clerics)

3e Fighters are really not great, hence my suggestion to swap in Slayer. And then needing wizards like 3.Y to make them closer to AD&D wizards.

 

[TwoSix]

Yep. Nothing wrong with that preference, but it doesn't give me what I want from D&D, that's a different game, and not one I'm really interested in.

Sure. Preferences are of course preferences, de gustibus and all that.

I would note only that my earlier post #585 wasn't really about preferences; it was more pushback against the conventional wisdom that splatbook bloat was the ultimate cause of 3.5's noted balance issues.

My personal observation is that it's the core classes, feats, and spells present within the 3.5 (and 3.0) corebooks that are the root cause of the 3.X imbalances; the later material present in the 3.5 line is actually more balanced when it isn't integrated with the problematic elements within the 3.X core.

Fighters are too weak, wizards are too strong, but warblades and binders were jusssst right.

 

[VHawkwinter]

Sure. Preferences are of course preferences, de gustibus and all that.

I would note only that my earlier post #585 wasn't really about preferences; it was more pushback against the conventional wisdom that splatbook bloat was the ultimate cause of 3.5's noted balance issues.

Ah. My comments were less about isolated balance and more about my general thoughts on quality. Though some of the splat stuff is notoriously busted too. Stuff in Serpent Kingdoms that enables Punpun for instance.

My personal observation is that it's the core classes, feats, and spells present within the 3.5 (and 3.0) corebooks that are the root cause of the 3.X imbalances; the later material present in the 3.5 line is actually more balanced when it isn't integrated with the problematic elements within the 3.X core. Fighters are too weak, wizards are too strong, but warblades and binders were jusssst right.

I don't entirely disagree. The later books did have classes closer to the middle of those tier lists, and I think they overtuned spellcasting in general from the outset (too many spells per day in particular), some of the spells are just too good in their 3e rewrite, particularly with how often you can use them, and fighter and rogue and monk are just not as good party members.

But you could get some crazy busted stuff with some of those splats that were not playtested or scrutinised enough. Some of it was busted when combined with PHB classes like Nightsticks and Divine Meta magic Persist. I don't think PunPun needed anything special from the PHB though, IIRC it was self contained broken. But part of what you're observing could also be that most of the later classes have no content outside the book they came from. But those later classes are also typically full of encounter powers and other boardgamey gimmick mechanics (which are a matter of preference but they ruin it for me), and they lack the "D&Dness" those less balanced PHB classes have (which is the main appeal of playing D&D, again, for me).

 

[TwoSix]

Ah. My comments were less about isolated balance and more about my general thoughts on quality. Though some of the splat stuff is notoriously busted too. Stuff in Serpent Kingdoms that enables Punpun for instance.

Sure, but Pun-Pun was really an issue of a problematic core spell (polymorph self) turning every monster book into a possible player-facing splat. That wasn't an issue with specified player-focused splat material.

But you could get some crazy busted stuff with some of those splats that were not playtested or scrutinised enough. Some of it was busted when combined with PHB classes like Nightsticks and Divine Meta magic Persist. I don't think PunPun needed anything special from the PHB though, IIRC it was self contained broken. But part of what you're observing could also be that most of the later classes have no content outside the book they came from. But those later classes are also typically full of encounter powers and other boardgamey gimmick mechanics (which are a matter of preference but they ruin it for me), and they lack the "D&Dness" those less balanced PHB classes have (which is the main appeal of playing D&D, again, for me).

Yes, Nightsticks and Divine Metamagic were problematic, no question. (Although the class that benefited from it the most by far was the PHB cleric.) Splat certainly isn't immune from problematic material. But as you said, the fact that later splat classes were more isolated from the large pool of material that was designed to further bolster the core classes helped keep them from rampant problematic synergies.

It also helped that the classes that were the most challenging for 3.5 balance were the caster classes, and later designed caster classes moved more of their power budget into bespoke class features (which don't scale with PrCs) and out of the core spellcasting feature (which does scale with PrCs).

 

[Azzy]

Sure, but Pun-Pun was really an issue of a problematic core spell (polymorph self) turning every monster book into a possible player-facing splat. That wasn't an issue with specified player-focused splat material.

Yeah, Pun Pun also required a lot of DM buy-in to work outside of being a thought experiment.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

A lot depends on whether you can tell players to manage their own stuff.

I did. They got it wrong a lot, forgot this or that modifier, effect, or aura. I'm still suspicious of the one PC's AC calculations, too.

Oh, if you want to say that 4e characters were too busy (especially toward the upper end) I'd absolutely agree with you; I had a heck of a time managing the cleric I played up to around 20th because there were so many bits and bobs (this is, IMO, a chronic problem with games in the D20 sphere because everything is a bloody special case). I'm just unsold it would have been meaningfully better if she had only used PHB1 stuff.

We only got as far as 15th level or so, and that was way too busy. I can't imagine hitting 20th.

Yeah, high-level play remains an issue in most editions. I am increasingly inclined to think that the high-level domain game of AD&D was a smarter move than I thought at the time.

 

[haakon1]

I want D&D for 2e setting book compatibility, Forgotten Realms compatibility … and pretty "simulationist" game mechanics. Late 3e splats and 4e give me none of that.

Similar. For me it’s AD&D 1e adventure compatibility; Greyhawk compatibility; the ability to pull in anything I want from across AD&D, 2e, Basic, PF1, d20 3rd party stuff, and to a lesser extent 5e; and yes “simulationist” feel.

3.x without the splat bloat (never allowed in games I played in or DM) and CharOp (never seen it, only heard about it here) feels like an actual world to me.