Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="UngeheuerLich" data-source="post: 8113608" data-attributes="member: 59057">No. But probably if I go 3rd edition again I might go back to 3.0... In hindsight, 3.0 was a lot better than 3.5 in some regards and after playing 3.x for 7 years and even later I understand some design decisions and assumptions of 3.0 better. Bonus points for 3.0 over 3.5.<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Concealment and cover was much more DM friendly</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Spells were a lot less coded</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">classes were a bit more frontloaded, so multiclass dipping was easier</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">the weight of multiclassing didn't rest on thousends of prestige classes and feats</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Enemy AC was more reasonable, as in everone could more easily hit monsters at medium level, so a fighters first attack connected most of the time and the second attack was on par with the other classes</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">There was less of an assumption of magic items, certain materials to overcome resistances were useful (instead of being easily overcome with magic).</li> </ul>In hindsight, 3.5 patched things away that were good and added things that seemed good (more power to players), but increased the imbalance between fighters and spellcasters even further. Pathfinder doubled down on 3.5 design decisions, probably making it a better 3.5, but even more went away from my 3.0 that I started DMing with and loved. So after all: 3.0 with maybe a splash of 3.5 would be my preferred system (after 5e).</blockquote>

Verification