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

[Thomas Shey]

Agree that it didn't work it at all. It set so many bad expectations that just chucking it led to a more harmonious game.

I think there were too many moving parts in D&D3e to try and put together encounters just by eyeball. There are games you can do that with, but they usually don't have nearly as many variables you have to deal with, or they're more compressed (it was relatively easy to do this in OD&D because things like AC, hit points, and the highest damage output number told so much of the story, and it was all relatively compressed).

Its not impossible to make a CR like structure that mostly works. PF2e, D&D4e and (to some extent) 13th Age all do. D&D3e's just didn't, at least after the first few levels (and questionably then).

As for the post-10th level tedium, a lot of that has to do with tolerating bad behavior. I used to have a lot of house rules to help certain players pre-calculate stuff so they could just roll some dice and move on... and they still took their sweet time. Putting them on a timer was harsh but it was the only program that produced results.

Naw. The problems I had were things at my end. The inevitable propagation of spells, feats and special abilities on opponents, given they're all special cases made it just impossible to keep track of even a small number of varied opponents. Something as avowedly simple as one 14th level wizard and two 12th level fighter bodyguards was just unmanageable. My players had a lot less to keep track of. And there wasn't a lot of opposition that wasn't like this as you got up in level; demons and dragons for example, could have all of that on one creature.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Strangely, most of the time the concept came up, people on that forum were posting about how such a setting couldn't possibly work or exist, as if somehow the very concept offended them.

Well, it probably did, since it thoroughly reified the mechanical implications of some things, and a lot of D&D players in that time and place really thought of things in terms of 1-6th level old school style play and not much more. In some respects playing D&D 3e was really the wrong thing for them.

 

[Thomas Shey]

My first campaign rule for 3e was capping the level at 12. I also would slow leveling at levels 6th-10th and further at levels 11 and 12.

I'd missed Yora's comment about the level capping; thanks for bringing it to my attention, as it makes my second point mostly moot.

That said, at that point I have to wonder why I'm bothering with 3e if we're going to ignore a third of the intended playspace.

 

[James Gasik]

I think there were too many moving parts in D&D3e to try and put together encounters just by eyeball. There are games you can do that with, but they usually don't have nearly as many variables you have to deal with, or they're more compressed (it was relatively easy to do this in OD&D because things like AC, hit points, and the highest damage output number told so much of the story, and it was all relatively compressed).

Its not impossible to make a CR like structure that mostly works. PF2e, D&D4e and (to some extent) 13th Age all do. D&D3e's just didn't, at least after the first few levels (and questionably then).



Naw. The problems I had were things at my end. The inevitable propagation of spells, feats and special abilities on opponents, given they're all special cases made it just impossible to keep track of even a small number of varied opponents. Something as avowedly simple as one 14th level wizard and two 12th level fighter bodyguards was just unmanageable. My players had a lot less to keep track of. And there wasn't a lot of opposition that wasn't like this as you got up in level; demons and dragons for example, could have all of that on one creature.

Oh god, this. Humanoid foes were the worst at higher level, because they needed gear in order to keep up with the players. Gear which would inevitably be looted off their corpses. I'd spend hours statting up a humanoid opponent only for them to turn into a loot pinata.

It's sad, really. I loved the idea that monsters were built much the same way PC's were, but this quickly fell apart at higher levels. Enemies would have bloated amounts of hit dice and inflated ability scores, and bespoke abilities to make up for the fact they weren't equipped with "The Big Six" items.

And anything with class levels would have a greatly inflated CR for what they brought to the table.

4e is the best system for encounter design ever put to paper (though even it had flaws) and I miss it very much.

 

[James Gasik]

I'd missed Yora's comment about the level capping; thanks for bringing it to my attention, as it makes my second point mostly moot.

That said, at that point I have to wonder why I'm bothering with 3e if we're going to ignore a third of the intended playspace.

I mean, it may be intended, but that doesn't mean it works.

 

[DeadlyUematsu]

Naw. The problems I had were things at my end.

Sorry to hear that. Hope whatever you're playing suits you better.

 

[DeadlyUematsu]

I'd missed Yora's comment about the level capping; thanks for bringing it to my attention, as it makes my second point mostly moot.

That said, at that point I have to wonder why I'm bothering with 3e if we're going to ignore a third of the intended playspace.

The higher levels (13-20) weren't really playable space.

Gary Gygax is oft-quoted as saying that 16th level in 1e is the practical maximum and beyond that, you're on your own and having ran multiple campaigns at those levels in 3E as a GM, while the designers and freelancers might have tried to support those levels, you're still definitely underserved in 3E.

Furthermore, those levels sometimes more feel like victory lapping then genuine play experience that I joked the moment a party reached 13th level, you might as well roll the credits because, for the GM, it only gets more droll out from there.

 

[payn]

The very first thing I would do to greatly improve the game and (mostly) everyone's experience with it immediately conflicts with the whole initial premise of taking the game as it actually is and working with that. Which is to lower the level cap from 20th level to 12th level.

I ran 3E and then PF1 for many years. This was my go to move for campaigns. I would either use E6, or I would end the campaign and start anew at level 12-14. My players and I just found the time it took to get to those levels, the game just got long in the tooth. Starting over again starts to sound real good.

Speaking of which, I realized literally only yesterday what the purpose of the Multiclass XP penalty and Favored Classes was. What it does is to discourage players from dipping one or two levels in a class to collect their front loaded main abilities. Like 2 feats for 2 fighter levels, or 8+Int skill points for 1 rogue level, which you can all put into a single skill if you do it at a later point.
Elves are free to dip wizard, dwarves are free to dip fighter, and halflings are free to dip rogue. Which all seems appropriate to give each race as a whole more character and evoke their niche.
But I have to say, in the good 7 or 8 years that I had been casually hanging around Char Op subforums, I am pretty sure I have never seen anyone even mention that Multiclass XP penalties could be a factor. This was something that was in the rule, everyone saw once and thought it was stupid (because they didn't understood what it was supposed to do?), and immediately became common consensus to completely ignore for the entirety of the game's run.

Here you lose me though. Outside a few supplements and 3PP, multiclassing was never a problem for me. Often, you traded power for versatility. I actually found this to be a strength of 3E as part of its infinitely customizable approach to character building.

But maybe do enforce it

Actually, I think using milestone leveling is a vast improvement to 3E/PF1 play. Multiclass, crafting, etc.. penalties are a PITA to track and dont help at all with perceived power issues in my experience.

(and remind the players of it in advance, because everyone think it's ignored by default) to put a bit of breaks on the whole Char Ops train that easily runs away from you. In theory, spending time between games on theoretical optimization of your character shouldn't have any negative impact of what actually happens when you play. But in my experience it often does. It's a big part of what I usually call "Searching for the solution to obstacles on your character sheet". And that's what RPGs really should not be about. In combat situations maybe, but overall playing an RPG should not be approached as a math puzzle. You have both a player for every party member and a GM for all the NPCs present who can play all the characters as people. Through complex interactions. It's not a 1980s computer game or choose your own adventure book with dice. I think that for a really enjoyable roleplaying game, players should think of their character sheet as little as possible and imagine the game world as a real place instead. Letting the Char Ops train run away with you is something that I encountered and experienced as one of the big obstacles towards that goal.

I think you hit on a nuanced issue here with 3E play that isnt exactly tied to multiclassing itself. I do think milestone takes some of the burden off character "building" and a bit of the edge off for rewarding "gaming" the system in play. On top of that, multiclassing, as I mentioned, gives versatility to players giving them more tools in the box. Which is huge because 3E is essentially designed to make characters extreme specialists in a given area. Usually, just a few areas at that. So, a typical character has a hammer and a Philips screwdriver, so naturally every problem looks like a nail or screw.

What I am wondering now is, what kind of adventures, campaigns, and play style is D&D 3rd edition actually best at?

I think the adventure path is the answer. During the PF1 era I ran everything from dungeon crawlers to urban adventures. Political intrigue to gothic horror. Linear and non-linear alike. I think the key, however, is you need a specific idea in which the players can specialize around. If you just sandbox an entire setting, sooner or later, a PC is going to be useless. Which is why players guides for adventure paths were so fantastic. They helped players lean into 3E's best bits which is specialization.

 

[DeadlyUematsu]

Actually, I think using milestone leveling is a vast improvement to 3E/PF1 play. Multiclass, crafting, etc.. penalties are a PITA to track and dont help at all with perceived power issues in my experience.

More and more, not only do I think you should keep the penalties but given how much time is downplayed in 3.X campaigns, I think a DM should institute more stringent training times for multiclassing and then wisely put a time pressure ala RHoD and Dragons of Autumn.

 

[Thomas Shey]

The higher levels (13-20) weren't really playable space.

Only because of bad design in some areas.

Gary Gygax is oft-quoted as saying that 16th level in 1e is the practical maximum and beyond that, you're on your own and having ran multiple campaigns at those levels in 3E as a GM, while the designers and freelancers might have tried to support those levels, you're still definitely underserved in 3E.

But that was OS thinking. There's nothing that intrinsically makes that true. For all that I had some issues with the system, D&D4e showed that, as does Pathfinder 2e.

Furthermore, those levels sometimes more feel like victory lapping then genuine play experience that I joked the moment a party reached 13th level, you might as well roll the credits because, for the GM, it only gets more droll out from there.

But again, that's got more to do with problems in design, which is the whole point. To avoid them you have to truncate a pretty big part of the game (including, I might add, some very traditional opponents).