D&D 3E/3.5 Why 3.5 Worked

schneeland · Jan 2, 2020

Acolyte of Zothique said:
You misunderstand me, I DMed 3.5 using many sourcebooks and it was a nightmare. I never ran 3.5 using just the core books, I'm speculating that just using the core books was the only way to maintain sanity.

3.5 with the core books was indeed a solid experience (still a few odd/annoying parts, but manageable via house rules). We ran that for a number of years a enjoyed it quite a bit.
Once we added additional books, though, and some people started to look more seriously into system mastery/optimisation, the appeal was rapidly lost.

Mistwell · Jan 2, 2020

3e worked because it functioned better than 2e. That's most of the answer to that question.

hawkeyefan · Jan 2, 2020

I had a couple of friends who were into RPGs but D&D never really clicked for them until 3E. This was for a variety of reasons that I don’t really need to go into other than to say that the effort made by 3E to clearly define everything really clicked for my group.

Then 3.5 came along and I think the game became far too codified at that point. There were many options and tons and tons of rules. It started to become cumbersome. Also, I don’t think that many of the options presented really offered all that much to the game. A lot of it seemed pretty superficial, but the “variety” of options was supposedly one of the perks.

I also found it to be the edition that my group argued about the most during play. I think the rules had become so codified that DM rulings were seen as almost unnecessary at times. Players would often know specific rules better than the DM (especially feats and similar options) and this resulted in a lot of clashes about rules.

I was nearly exhausted by the whole experience when 4 E came out. We tried that, and although I found it fun to DM, eventually the novelty wore off for the players. They asked if we could play Pathfinder instead, and so we did.

I didn't realize that I was jumping back into the same situation that had nearly exhausted me. Pathfinder started out just fine. But then the endless splatbooks soon made things worse than they had ever been with 3.5.

So I think that ultimately, 3E and 3.5 and Pathfinder are all solid games at their core, and each version brought something new and innovative to the D&D catalogue...but each wound up collapsing under its own weight. Too much bloat and power creep and a system that rewards knowing all the new options...that’s a bad combo.

Scrivener of Doom · Jan 2, 2020

Aebir-Toril said:
(snip) 5E doesn't ever allow PCs to temporarily raise their level, cast dozens of spells, or create peasant railguns. (snip)

Nor did 3.5E. The rules cannot fix "stupid".

Yes, 3.xE broke down relatively early - even using PHB-only - but a lot of the really egregious complaints, such as the peasant railguns and the eternal kobold (whatever it was called), due to the DMs and players with no grasp of rules or logic.

You cannot fix "stupid".

TheSword said:
(snip) However with the exception of maybe Red Hand of Doom, and possibly the Twisting of the Weave Trilogy the adventures were consistently awful IMHO.

It was great for people who wanted to write their own adventures and campaigns and loved rules - therefore terrible for new players who didn’t want such a high barrier to entry.

Had the same quality of adventure writing been applied to 3.5 as to the current campaigns I think it would have been amazing.

Note that the adventures you mentioned were written by Rich Baker or under his general stewardship. 4E was also notorious for really crappy adventures - with Rich Baker's being the honourable exceptions. And yet he's the one they retrenched, not the really poor adventure writers....

WotC finally started to get more hits than misses with their 5E adventures and that, no doubt, has also played a major role in 5E's success.

Stalker0 · Jan 2, 2020

I agree that 3e is a very solid game at the 3-8ish levels that most people play in.

Its the players edition, chalk full of options and tricks. While daunting to newbies, the hardcore players had infinite options to make characters and master concepts.

I think 5e has pulled most of the good things from 3e but there is definitely a "restriction" in 5e builds that did not exist in 3e, and some players really chafe under those restrictions.

Son of the Serpent · Jan 2, 2020

Aebir-Toril said:
As long as the core design principles of 5E are never violated, which might make for a boring edition, it will never be as broken as 3.5 was. 5E doesn't ever allow PCs to temporarily raise their level, cast dozens of spells, or create peasant railguns. It may not be easy to hear, as I too like 3.5 as an edition, but 5E will never be the broken, buggy mess that 3.5 was. That will undoubtedly lead to a more boring game over time, but balance will be far easier to maintain, thanks to the structure of feats, level features, multiclassing, spellcasting, and concentration.

I find that 5e actually has something i would almost never claim a game to have.

TOO much balance. And too many mechanically "clonish" things. I believe that too much balance is actually something that can exist.

I consider 3.5 superior. But thats me personally.

Son of the Serpent · Jan 2, 2020

Stalker0 said:
I agree that 3e is a very solid game at the 3-8ish levels that most people play in.

Its the players edition, chalk full of options and tricks. While daunting to newbies, the hardcore players had infinite options to make characters and master concepts.

I think 5e has pulled most of the good things from 3e but there is definitely a "restriction" in 5e builds that did not exist in 3e, and some players really chafe under those restrictions.

Ill never dm in 5e because i chafe at the restrictions as a player but i can feel the dm side of me actually being more chafed than the player side. Might just be the type of dm i am.

I hate homogeneity and simplicity. Two things 5e has truck loads of. For better or for worse.

Anoth · Jan 2, 2020

Son of the Serpent said:
Ill never dm in 5e because i chafe at the restrictions as a player but i can feel the dm side of me actually being more chafed than the player side. Might just be the type of dm i am.

I hate homogeneity and simplicity. Two things 5e has truck loads of. For better or for worse.

Are u by any chance enjoying PF 2E?

amethal · Jan 2, 2020

Maxperson said:
Pathfinder changed Dodge to a general +1 to AC?

Yes, it did.

It's still a dodge bonus, so do you still notice it sometimes i.e. when you don't get it.

amethal · Jan 2, 2020

Anoth said:
I wonder if anyone besides me has played pathfinder with the only multiclassing allowed is one prestige class

Not me, I'm a compulsive multi-classer, so that rule wouldn't suit me at all.

What was the reason for that rule? None of my multi-classed monstrosities are anywhere near as powerful as most single-classed characters would be, and if simplicity is the aim I'd ban prestige classes as well.