3e is an Old Game now?
Geez, that crept up on me ...
I'm almost the other way around: things like weapon focus and weapon spec. should have been kept* and 95% of the rest scrapped.The only feats that should be allowed are those that add flavor or open up new abilities. Feats that do nothing but provide a mechanical benefit, such as weapon focus, should have never been part of the rules.
I think that one of the dullest things about 3rd Edition was the feats. They were a cool idea, but nearly every feat in the game could be distilled to "here's a way to get a +X bonus to <thing>," usually an attack roll or armor class. Most feats otherwise contributed nothing to the character at all.
Sometimes, one of us would try to add nuance and flavor, but that would be completely forgotten after one gaming session because it just didn't matter a whole lot (and also because by 10th level, it was impossible to remember that "special unique flavor" for each of the two dozen or so feats that everyone in the group had selected.)
I think that 5E helped both of my issues with feats by making them a lot more interesting, and making them a lot more scarce.
I played 3.x for many years, and absolutely loved it. It was, and is, my favourite edition of the game.
But...
Unfortunately, as time went on it became apparent that 3e had some fundamental issues. In hindsight, I'm also convinced that from the publication of "Sword & Fist" onward, almost every supplement for the game actually made it worse. And I'm further convinced that the less you dig into the maths behind the game, and especially the less the players dig into the maths behind the game, the better it is.
The upshot of all of that is that I very much doubt I would ever run 3e again, and very much doubt that I would enjoy the experience. Which is really quite unfortunate - 5e just doesn't sing to me the way 3e did, but when running it I can expend my effort on running it, rather than constantly tinkering in pursuit of an imaginary perfection.
If that makes any sense at all.![]()
3e is an Old Game now?
Geez, that crept up on me ...
Huh, yup.Put it this way. When 3E came out we were at a point close to time to 1E than we are tow to when 3.5 went out if print.
The 3E sucks narrative is generally only pushed in online forums. It had continuous support via Paizo until 2019. 19 year run.
Exactly. It’s a good game when you houserule and limit options... like every edition of D&D!Put it this way. When 3E came out we were at a point close to time to 1E than we are tow to when 3.5 went out if print.
The 3E sucks narrative is generally only pushed in online forums. It had continuous support via Paizo until 2019. 19 year run.
But there's a difference between a game that's already good but is made even better by a few houserules, vs. a game that's functional only with a boatload of houserules.Exactly. It’s a good game when you houserule and limit options... like every edition of D&D!
2e needed a boatload of houserules to be playable.But there's a difference between a game that's already good but is made even better by a few houserules, vs. a game that's functional only with a boatload of houserules.
My experience with both editions is the exact opposite of what you describe, in both cases.2e needed a boatload of houserules to be playable.
3e could benefit from a few houserules or being prudent with what supplements you allow. It was far, far more playable with the RAW than any prior edition.
In my years of playing AD&D 2e, I only knew of ONE group that even played it close to RAW. Every other group had to house-rule it extensively to make it even vaguely playable. It had WAY too many arbitrary, silly, nonsensical restrictions (why can't elves be druids, why can there only be one 15th level druid in the world, why can't my thief learn to be a fighter, if my fighter starts the game illiterate why does he have to wait until 6th level to learn to read and write, why can't my dwarf become a Paladin, why do you roll percentage to climb a wall but a d20 to swim, why do priest spells go to 7th level but wizard spells go to 9th, etc)My experience with both editions is the exact opposite of what you describe, in both cases.
There is no way you can tell me with a straight face that 3e was more balanced than 2e.It was stable, balanced, and consistent in ways that 2e could only dream of.
So I moved to Pathfinder and kept effectively playing a hacked version of 3e for four more years.
But there's a difference between a game that's already good but is made even better by a few houserules, vs. a game that's functional only with a boatload of houserules.