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

[Voadam]

What about Synergy bonuses?

They are basically free +2s, which are always nice. But this feels to me like something that players would most likely forget to apply at least half of the time. Especially those that you can't just put in your skill modifier because it only applies to certain specific uses of the skill.

Is it really important enough to try remembering it, or is it something that you best just tell the players to completely ignore and not deal with it?

Most of them that I remember were for having five ranks in a different skill, so they just get added in to the total once that gets hit which is easy with no forgetting when applicable. It also means there is an incentive to hit five ranks in certain skills. Bluff adding to diplomacy and intimidate, sense motive to diplomacy, tumble adding to jump and balance and so on. The SRD has a good listing of them. I believe Pathfinder cut them out to avoid the thinking about situational ones and to smooth out the max skill math a little.

 

[amethal]

I believe Pathfinder cut them out to avoid the thinking about situational ones and to smooth out the max skill math a little.

Except for the "hidden" synergy bonus of having 3 ranks in Acrobatics (Tumble) giving you an additional +1 AC when fighting defensively, which is still in the Combat chapter of Pathfinder.

 

[Yora]

If I'm using the Pathfinder skill ranks anyway, I'm feeling affirmed to ditch synergy bonuses as well.

 

[DeadlyUematsu]

If you are claiming that it's unplayable as a general thing, yes you have to be wrong because I experienced otherwise. If you're just speaking for you, then I accept that it was unplayable for you.

Not relevant. It was playable for me and literally several dozen others that I saw in my immediate games and know of several dozen more, so what happened before that doesn't matter. I've only met a few who think like you do.

If you are talking epic levels, then sure. Lack of support(at least good support) was true. If you're talking 12-20th level, there was literally TONS of support.

I thought you varied things up when you DM'd it. If you had, then that would not be an issue.

And now we are back to correlation does not equal causation. Most games ended early because people moved, PCs died, life got busy, etc

And I can point out that the vocal minority is usually the voice most commonly heard, because the happy folks don't bother. I could also point out how the vast majority of players don't come to forums like this.

You don't have an acceptable or unbiased sample. So sure, there were people who felt the game was unwieldy and who don't like game that are imbalanced. All of 3e was imbalanced by the way. Not just the higher levels. The existence of those people, though, still can't possibly make what you are claiming true. The existence of the great many of us for whom the game worked just fine up to level 20 disproves your claim as a general thing.

So basically you're right because you're holding yourself to a different standard. Understood. We're done here.

 

[Maxperson]

So basically you're right because you're holding yourself to a different standard. Understood. We're done here.

No. That's completely wrong. See ya.

 

[Yora]

I am reading through the Player's Handbook again, learning again the rules that I never really used when I was running campaigns.

And It feels like reading the Skill description is just like it was 23 years ago. Some are very straightforward, but with others I'm not so sure how I would actually use them in play.

Diplomacy has been widely discussed as having nonsensical rules for changing NPCs attitude. But I'm also really not quite sure how you would be using it for negotiations.
Both sides roll Diplomacy, the side that rolls higher gets what they want. That just sounds like pestering someone into submission. The goal of negotiations is to find a way to get both sides sufficiently of what they want so that they go along with the deal instead of having no deal.
If the players are offering a deal to an NPC that is in that NPCs interest, there wouldn't be an opposed Diplomacy roll at all. A very good negotiator would not be more likely to refuse a good offer. Dealing with a good negotiator should not make it harder to find an agreement.
In what situation would you make an opposed Diplomacy check? Maybe when a PC and an NPC both try to win another NPC for their position, but that would be a rather special case.

Next one is Disguise. Making someone think you are another person, even if they know that person very well, should be impossible without magic. Not a +10 bonus to that NPCs Spot check. But I guess you could use the impersonation modifier if you are using a magic disguise. Then I would buy it.

And then there is Gather Information. I don't think I've ever seen anyone use that skill. What kind of situation is it meant to be used for exactly?

 

[payn]

I am reading through the Player's Handbook again, learning again the rules that I never really used when I was running campaigns.

And It feels like reading the Skill description is just like it was 23 years ago. Some are very straightforward, but with others I'm not so sure how I would actually use them in play.

Diplomacy has been widely discussed as having nonsensical rules for changing NPCs attitude. But I'm also really not quite sure how you would be using it for negotiations.
Both sides roll Diplomacy, the side that rolls higher gets what they want. That just sounds like pestering someone into submission. The goal of negotiations is to find a way to get both sides sufficiently of what they want so that they go along with the deal instead of having no deal.
If the players are offering a deal to an NPC that is in that NPCs interest, there wouldn't be an opposed Diplomacy roll at all. A very good negotiator would not be more likely to refuse a good offer. Dealing with a good negotiator should not make it harder to find an agreement.
In what situation would you make an opposed Diplomacy check? Maybe when a PC and an NPC both try to win another NPC for their position, but that would be a rather special case.

I would use haggle for a negotiation likely preceded by a diplomacy check to see how likely the NPC is to listen to an offer. However, I wouldn’t rely on the roll alone to determine the deal the details still matter. Some folks might disagree and use diplomacy as a form of mind control but I do not.

Next one is Disguise. Making someone think you are another person, even if they know that person very well, should be impossible without magic. Not a +10 bonus to that NPCs Spot check. But I guess you could use the impersonation modifier if you are using a magic disguise. Then I would buy it.

I’m confused by the specific application example. I assumed disguise self was to hide your identity but not necessarily take on one in particular. In that case the disguise is the visual and sense motive would be the interaction if I was the GM

And then there is Gather Information. I don't think I've ever seen anyone use that skill. What kind of situation is it meant to be used for exactly?

Anytime the players are looking for info really. Are they always familiar with their surroundings, people, and current events? I use it if the PCs are trying to locate things or learn the current lay of the land. Couple with knowledge checks as applicable.

 

[Yora]

Disguise lets you impersonate a specific individual, and the skill description lists the modifiers other NPCs get to their sense motive check, based on how well they know that person.

If they know the person and would recognize him on the street, it's +4.
If they are personally acquainted, it's +6.
If they are friends, it's +8
If they are close family, it's +10,

For a regular person, that's a Sense Motive roll of 11 to 30 to recognize someone impersonating your father or wife.
A 5th level bard with 16 Charisma could have +13 to that Disguise roll without even trying any optimization shenanigans. That's a more than 50% chance to pull off something that should be impossible with only a modest training. Cast a simple 1st level disguise self and you boost your roll to +23. Even if the person rolls a 20 on sense motive, you still only need an 8 to pull it off.

--

I was having a shower thought about how Diplomacy might be somewhat salvaged.

Instead of making the Diplomacy roll to change the target's whole attitude, have one Diplomacy roll made for one single specific request. Which in the case of a hostile monster could just be "Please, don't kill me!"
Getting to unfriendly (DC 20) could see you taken prisoner or chases away with the assurance of death if you show yourself again.
Indifferent (DC 25) could see you just thrown out of the current place. The creature still hates you, but just wants the current confrontation be over with.
Friendly (DC 35), the creature might have some mercy on you and tell you how to best get out without running into anyone else who might not be as sympathetic.
And helpful (DC 50), the creature might actually help you getting past its friends who are in the way of escape to freedom.

Sure, when you have a character with +45 to Diplomacy checks, then you still get really weird adventures. But I would say that's the case for any skill that is at +45. But getting an enemy to agree to one request is a very different situation from making an enemy into a loyal ally.
And in any event, helpful means a creature will take some risk and provide some support to help you. But it still has the same commitment to its friends and allies and won't throw all it can offer behind furthering your cause. It becomes friendly or helpful to you. It does not switch sides.

 

[Sepulchrave II]

Re: the playability of high level 3.X

I think some genuine, valid criticisms can be levelled at ease of play for high level 3E; I mean, it's not something which you can casually hop into and expect to work seamlessly. That said, I find it eminently playable.

I think you need to put the work in, as a player or referee. By this, I mean rules literacy, adequate pre-session prep, intimacy with your own character'a abilities, and having methods of quick-referencing things like spells and feats to avoid hunting through books.

I think it does require a rather more flexible understanding of "balance," inasmuch as I see balance being a dynamic process rather than a static state. Or maybe aspirational - something worth striving for in the course of play. While I might not go as far as @Yora asserting unbelief in balance, I think that the various dimensions of balance/imbalance emerge through play and are particular to any individual game. The DM needs to be aware of where disparities are emerging, and adjust accordingly as the game progresses. This might be a rules modification, the placement of a magic item to benefit a particular character. etc. Or simply allowing a character to progress more quickly in order to "catch up" in terms of their effectiveness - this requires trust, ongoing dialogue with players, and a collective acknowledgment that this is a desirable state of affairs.

 

[Zardnaar]

And no offense to people who feel otherwise, but I do still stand on the point that the problems with 3e were to a large extent, baked in. They aren't just operator error, either at the GM or player's part.

Of you play 3E casually like late 2E it works OK.

I houseruled 3.5 and brought in some 2E rules from Spells and Magic tegarding item creation.

Buying and selling magic items is a big problem with 3.5. Take that away, ban the worst offending spells, feats, and prestige classes, limit it to 1 prestige class and play it 2E mode helps.

Think I used UA Druid as errata as well.