D&D 3.x I miss 3.5 edition

[neceros]

One of the things about M&M some forget is the supplement Warriors & Warlocks- a FRPG-themed expansion. Not that you needed it, strictly speaking, but things like that are always helpful. I own a copy, but never got around to using it.

In a retrospective tangent: it might have been a better system than HERO for me to try modeling a M:tG fantasy campaign setting. While I was succeeding in the modeling side of the task with HERO, the players in my group were not interested in even trying to play in it because they didn’t like that system.

OTOH, the one M&M 2Ed campaign I ran with that group fizzled very quickly, in part because of certain system design decisions, in part because of my unfamiliarity with the system resulting in some difficulties actually refereeing the game.

4th ed M&M being released soon. I really like 3rd so I kinda want to check it out. I also have an M&M3 sheet but I haven't really touched it in a long time. Actually I updated it just now.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

4th ed M&M being released soon. I really like 3rd so I kinda want to check it out. I also have an M&M3 sheet but I haven't really touched it in a long time.

I never touched 3Ed. Some of the stuff I saw in reviews didn’t sit well with me, so I just gave it a pass.

 

[neceros]

I never touched 3Ed. Some of the stuff I saw in reviews didn’t sit well with me, so I just gave it a pass.

that's fair. looking at the 2nd M&M sheet it seems there are some big differences to 3rd

 

[Tigris]

It was everything being identical in nature only different in theme. Attack does 1d6 damage, but you get your pick of fire, ice, or slashing damage. It never added fluff or anything interesting.

I know that 4E for some people looked closer to MMOs because it does use similar clear language (both similar to MODERN MtG (which kind of became the defacto standard in many games).


However, what you are saying here is really not true. Literally every single attack in 4E has a flavour line, it is just separated from the mechanic part to make it easier to read.

As an example Lance of Faith (from PHB1):

"A brilliant ray of light sears your foe with golden radiance. Sparkles of light linger around the target, guiding your ally's attack."

Similarily almost all attack have "riders" so a bonus, and is not just damage. Like for the above lance:

"Hit: 1d8 + Wisdom modifier radiant damage, and one ally you can see gains a +2 power bonus to his or her next attack roll against the target."

And unlike most of 3.5 also martials did have maneuvers and not just basic attacks (which literally are just dice roll damage without anything added or flavour line etc.).


I agree that attacks (from martials and casters) did read more similar, thats something I like since it makes effects clear, I guess others dont, but effects where still varied, with different typical effect per power source and role.


Just look at the level 1 daily spells of the wizard (arcane controller) from the PHB there where from the start 3 completly different spells:

• Sleep: Non damaging slows enemies (which means they can only move 2 which helps to not let enemies in range), even if missed, and if it hit and enemies fail the first saving throw, their are unconscious (first attack against them is a guaranteed crit and they cant act)
• Freezing Cloud: Area cold damage and creates a zone of cold damage which persists when you "concentrate on it", so it changes the battlefield generating a dangerous zone and make the many forced movement abilities pay off.
• Flaming Sphere: You create a flaming sphere which you can control (using your actions) which automatically damages enemies next to them and can attack 1 enemy in addition each turn.

I like 3.5, especially the later classes where they did some interesting experiments, which they also started later in 4E (PHB3 added power point characters which worked fundamentally different, Essentials released some simplified characters with other class structures etc.), just that 4E was not getting old enough to go really crazy (like late 3.5)


The class difference in 3.5 was for sure bigger than in 4E, there was no truespeaker or similar things, but the effect in 4E where definitly not just all the same, there is a big variety from level 1. (And also some differences where more hidden, like weapon attacks taking damage from weapon while implement had fixed damage, different weapons/implements had different enchantments and (later) different feats, even some damage types had different feats (cold being able to create weakness to it, thunder being able to have bigger areas etc.)).

 

[cbwjm]

Something else I like from the conan rpg which I'd probably import into 3e is how it did favoured classes (something I typically ignored in 3e, if you wanted to be an elf fighter with just 2 levels of cleric, I didn't impose an xp penalty). In conan d20, instead of an xp penalty if you had classes out of alignment where one wasn't your favoured class, you instead gained bonus feats at 1st, 5th, and 10th level in your favoured class gaining a benefit for advancing an archetype. it was based on class level so a Cimmerian could styrene as a thief for 4 levels before gaining 10 levels of barbarian to get all 3 bonus feats.

 

[Reynard]

I want to run 3.5 again but I will need players that agree not to be jerks about it. I wonder if there are any...

 

[Voidmoji]

I want to run 3.5 again but I will need players that agree not to be jerks about it. I wonder if there are any...

Let me play a psion or crusader and I will be as jerk-free as possible!

I feel lucky that I have a group of players who are up for a wide range of games, without being asshats. I know not everyone is so lucky. If I do ever get around to offering up an E6 Pathfinder game, I doubt my group would even blink.

 

[Brendan Byrd]

I want to run 3.5 again but I will need players that agree not to be jerks about it. I wonder if there are any...

I’m quite fond of the 3.x/d20 complex, and wouldn’t be a jerk about the ruleset.

Spoiler: AITA? :D

But armed with a decent Player’s Guide (Alphatia), and a setting’s general “tone” (Mystara)…
(RG) DND 3.5 Enter Planescape

 

[Jahydin]

Fantasy Craft was my D&D 3.5 heartbreaker. I have the books sitting on my shelves, I've spent hours reading them and gushing over them with friends about how my issues with 3.5 were all fixed by FC... and I have never gotten to play a game of it. We were all moving to simpler games at the time, and learning another game of that complexity was too high of a sell for my groups.

Too cool, thanks for replying. Do you think it's even more of an improvement over Pathfinder?

I might get a PDF copy just to read for fun...

 

[Reynard]

Let me play a psion or crusader and I will be as jerk-free as possible!

I feel lucky that I have a group of players who are up for a wide range of games, without being asshats. I know not everyone is so lucky. If I do ever get around to offering up an E6 Pathfinder game, I doubt my group would even blink.

Again, players ruined 3.5. They decided that all they wanted was min maxing, and it literally ruined the game.