D&D 3E/3.5 Are You Still Playing D&D 3.0?

I basically got rid of everything 3.0 when 3.5 came out (with a couple exceptions of modules). Then I got rid of basically everything 3.5 (with a few exceptions of modules) when Pathfinder came out.
I would rather go back to any other edition of D&D than 3.x/PF1. I have zero nostalgic interest in it - I'm still suffering from burnout on it.
For me, the rules are a bloated, imbalanced mess; the art design is unappealing. There's nothing for me there.

Retreater said:

I basically got rid of everything 3.0 when 3.5 came out (with a couple exceptions of modules). Then I got rid of basically everything 3.5 (with a few exceptions of modules) when Pathfinder came out.
I would rather go back to any other edition of D&D than 3.x/PF1. I have zero nostalgic interest in it - I'm still suffering from burnout on it.
For me, the rules are a bloated, imbalanced mess; the art design is unappealing. There's nothing for me there.

Click to expand...

I started with 3.x, and have a lot of good memories, but trying 2E and then 5E make it hard to want to go back ...

I want make a return to 3.0. I like the basic structure to 3.0, and there's less to do to house rule it to my taste than I would have to do with 2e. 3.5 however....

I'm not a fan of what 3.5 did. The necessary errata was not justification to buy the core books all over again, and it altered and added enough that buying them again really was necessary. My inner cynic says the biggest thing fixed by 3.5 was WotC's cash flow. At best the number of changes introduced were far too many too close to the release of 3.0.

I don't like how it promiscuously added new base classes to the game. New base classes IMO, should be rare and reflect archetypical characters, but 3.5's base classes all feel artificial. Worse, they undermine existing classes that ARE archetypes. It doesn't help that many were introduced in PHB 2, which is a lousy name for a book and prejudices me against it. Naming books PHB 2 and DMG 2 makes it sound like the core rules themselves are incomplete. The worst new base classes are a toss up between the stuff from Book of Nine Swords which set out to improve weak base classes and utterly failed to do so by making new base classes that made those classes even weaker, or the Factotum, which was utter cheese on the level of an overripe wheel of casu marzu on a hot summer day.

I don't buy how 3.5 supposedly fixed 3.0 which is sometimes held up as unplayably broken. I didn't have serious problems in my 3.0 games, and 3.5 was responsible for a hell of a lot more bloat than 3.0. 3.0 had 5 class splats, a race splat for non-standard options, and a few rules expansions that largely harkened back to popular books from 1e and 2e, I think something like 8-9 of these at most? 3.5 comes along and cranks out 8 class splats, something like 4-5 race splats, 5 environment books, 5 books on specific monster types, 2 compilation books, and several more rulebooks which bloated things beyond all reason. There's no way that all that material that 3.5 was less broken than 3.0. Some of those books were padded out with updated material from 3.0 as well, so there's the added displeasure of buying duplicate material for the sake of dubious errata. To be fair, I think earlier on 3.5 did have some decent ideas, like the stuff published in 2004. But stuff from 2006 or 2007 tends to be poor quality from what I've seen of it. And that's just core; I'm not even aware of the full extent of stuff from the Realms or Eberron.

Nor does it help that the flavor of the material got worse as time went by. Another erroneous complaint about 3.0 was its lack of flavor. That was one of its strengths! 3.0 didn't disrupt existing campaigns by rewriting a quarter century of existing flavor, but 3.5 started to rewrite things while it was putting out stuff like Factotums, spiked chain fetishes, and pokemounts.

Bottom line is that 3.5 was hyped as improved and better, and a lot of fans accepted that without question, but many of 3e's problems are 3.5 and not 3.0. And the worst part is that 3.5 has too many fixes that the game needs to outright ignore.

I still play 3.5 on a regular basis and don't see a reason to go back to 3.0. Several classes got fixes in 3.5, most importantly the ranger.

I currently play a D20 Scifi campaign, I run a 3.5 Pirate Campaign (for many years now), and occasionally I run my D20 Cthulhu campaign.

I only play 3.0 when I occasionally replay Neverwinter Nights.
On a similar note, I only play 3.5 when I play NWN 2.

Great games, and the worst flaws of third edition really don’t matter much in single player videogames.

Orius said:

I don't buy how 3.5 supposedly fixed 3.0 which is sometimes held up as unplayably broken. I didn't have serious problems in my 3.0 games, and 3.5 was responsible for a hell of a lot more bloat than 3.0.

Click to expand...

Same.

I eventually moved to it because so many others were, and because it did have improvements and I know some of the specific changes were made to patch things rules lawyers were exploiting. . .but 3.0 wasn't so inherently broken it needed a major revision just 3 years after it was released.

Honestly, I blame the internet and message boards.

When we got 3e, it worked wonderfully, it was far, FAR more balanced and playable than 2e. By the time 3e came out, every 2e group I knew had to heavily houserule 2e to make it playable.

Then came message boards, with "build optimization", and "tiers" and similar rubbish. The gaming groups I played with generally ignored the stuff, I remember playing with one guy who played characters with elaborate "builds" of powergamed multiclass combos with elaborate feat chains exploiting ambiguous wording, who tried to lecture us on the "right" way to play characters:
"Clearly, sir, you aren't playing a melee build right, what you need is two levels of fighter, one level of Ranger, a level of Barbarian. . ."
"But I just want to play a Paladin!"
"Dude, whatever, this build is far more efficient than a Paladin!"

If you play 3e and you AREN'T actively trying to break it, and are playing it like 1e or 2e, then it worked really well. If you listened to people on the internet actively trying to exploit the system, then it didn't work, because then it became an arms race between people looking for system exploits and WotC trying to patch the exploits.

I remember reading repeatedly that when 3e came out, it had been playtested more than any previous edition of D&D. I remember people not believing that later, but it made complete sense when you realize it was being playtested by longtime AD&D 1e and 2e veterans, who were playing it like a normal, classic D&D game, not some contest of creating "builds". Maybe that was a shortcoming of WotC R&D twenty years ago, but it did produce a game that worked wonderfully as long as you weren't actively trying to break it.

But @wingsandsword sPiKEd ChAiN RAGiNG BaRBAriaN!!!!!

Orius said:

I don't like how it promiscuously added new base classes to the game.

Click to expand...

I don't know: Duskblade was pretty cool for a base class.

wingsandsword said:

If you play 3e and you AREN'T actively trying to break it, and are playing it like 1e or 2e, then it worked really well.

Click to expand...

Therein lies the problem though. Because 'breaking 3E' consists of 'y'know, what if, rather than buff someone else, I buff myself?' Or 'what if, rather than be any other class.... I be a wizard and suddenly I can outdo literately everyone in the party?'

You complain about build but, frankly, the crazy build stuff is the only way you can compete with just stock wizards

And that's before we even get to 3E rangers being the mess they are.

wingsandsword said:

Same.

I eventually moved to it because so many others were, and because it did have improvements and I know some of the specific changes were made to patch things rules lawyers were exploiting. . .but 3.0 wasn't so inherently broken it needed a major revision just 3 years after it was released.

Honestly, I blame the internet and message boards.

When we got 3e, it worked wonderfully, it was far, FAR more balanced and playable than 2e. By the time 3e came out, every 2e group I knew had to heavily houserule 2e to make it playable.

Then came message boards, with "build optimization", and "tiers" and similar rubbish. The gaming groups I played with generally ignored the stuff, I remember playing with one guy who played characters with elaborate "builds" of powergamed multiclass combos with elaborate feat chains exploiting ambiguous wording, who tried to lecture us on the "right" way to play characters:
"Clearly, sir, you aren't playing a melee build right, what you need is two levels of fighter, one level of Ranger, a level of Barbarian. . ."
"But I just want to play a Paladin!"
"Dude, whatever, this build is far more efficient than a Paladin!"

If you play 3e and you AREN'T actively trying to break it, and are playing it like 1e or 2e, then it worked really well. If you listened to people on the internet actively trying to exploit the system, then it didn't work, because then it became an arms race between people looking for system exploits and WotC trying to patch the exploits.

I remember reading repeatedly that when 3e came out, it had been playtested more than any previous edition of D&D. I remember people not believing that later, but it made complete sense when you realize it was being playtested by longtime AD&D 1e and 2e veterans, who were playing it like a normal, classic D&D game, not some contest of creating "builds". Maybe that was a shortcoming of WotC R&D twenty years ago, but it did produce a game that worked wonderfully as long as you weren't actively trying to break it.

Click to expand...

That was probably, personally, my BIGGEST agreements on the negative points of 3.0/3.5: the incredibly strong need to break it. Like people consider it "optimization" or "mastery of system mechanics" as its some epic thing. For me it was a completely headache inducing turnoff that just seemed unecessary/complicated/ohmygoodnessjustwhy(!?) in the long run.

Yes I know 5E is vanilla when it comes to builds or just not daring enough. Yet I am super glad WoTC toned down the insanity and actually gave incentives for sticking to one class or maybe a dip here and there.