D&D 3E/3.5 Edition Experience - Did/Do you Play 3rd Edtion D&D? How Was/Is it?

[Flamestrike]

I pretty much enjoyed every 3.x book except Tome of Battle and Magic of Incarnum.

Im with you on Incarunum, but ToB filled a niche for me. It gave martial types something to do other than just repeat the full attack action each turn. Instead of 'I attack' you got 'I'll strike the bad guy with Emerald razor strike' etc which is just a lot more fun and thematic.

It also allowed for combos, stances, parries and other counters, and the flavor was on point.

After playing a Warblade, I struggle going back to normal martials again. I just find them boring as hell.

I think that, like a lot of the supplements, if you ran a campaign just using ToB without Complete Warrior, or Incarum without Complete Psionics (or any of the other magic supplements), it would probably be ok.

The best way to 'save' 3.5 while keeping options open is to limit each PC to 'Core+1' for their PCs. It allows most of the bloat and options into your game without it getting out of hand, while stopping most of the truly insane builds out there, and allowing player choice. It also cuts down on the System mastery metagame that is the core of 3.5.

Even at a table of 5 players and a DM thats the 3 core rulebooks (which you should already know by heart) plus a maximum of 5 other books you need to know.

To make things easy on the pocket, make the player who wants to use the book, provide it.

I'd definitely still curb caster power a little in a 3.5 game I ran. Using 5E's spell progression for casters is the way to go for sure (more spells at low levels, but fewer higher level slots).

A rule I quite liked as well was the 'Rule of Three'. No PC can have levels in more than 3 classes (including PrC's). That also did a lot to even out the power curve among players, and keep the truly insane combos to a minimum.

 

[teitan]

When it first came out, 3e seemed the answer to all my prayers. Easy mechanics! Half-orcs! Take any class you want whenever you want, and as many levels as you want!

That wasn't true if I recall, even in 3.5. There were stiff penalties to multiclassing through core classes and they had to flatten, be within one level of each other or take a progressively worse penalty for each level difference between the two. Barring prestige classes. That was 3e, I don't recall the 3.5 multiclass rules off the top of my head. I remember the 3e restrictions because people would post how broken 3e was by doing crazy builds that violated those multiclassing rules.

 

[Ath-kethin]

That wasn't true if I recall, even in 3.5. There were stiff penalties to multiclassing through core classes and they had to flatten, be within one level of each other or take a progressively worse penalty for each level difference between the two. Barring prestige classes. That was 3e, I don't recall the 3.5 multiclass rules off the top of my head. I remember the 3e restrictions because people would post how broken 3e was by doing crazy builds that violated those multiclassing rules.

Yes, arbitrary limitations just like the ones in 2e, which, if you ignored them, would cause massive balance headaches. I got to that bit a little further down.

 

[teitan]

Yes, arbitrary limitations just like the ones in 2e, which, if you ignored them, would cause massive balance headaches. I got to that bit a little further down.

I didn’t really consider it arbitrary myself. It was very much in line with some of the D&D archetypes when it comes to multiclassing. To each their own though. no wrong way to play.

 

[Gladius Legis]

Yes, arbitrary limitations just like the ones in 2e, which, if you ignored them, would cause massive balance headaches. I got to that bit a little further down.

There wasn't a single 3.5 multiclass build that ever ended up being as strong as a pure Cleric, Druid or Wizard. No, not even Pun-Pun.

 

[Garyda]

With all of the talk about the Golden Age of Gaming, and all of the retro-clones floating around, it's made me curious about the older editions of the game. I'm curious how many folks on ENWorld have ever played these older editions, and what their level of satisfaction was. Or is, if you are one of the rare birds that are still rocking it O.G. Style.

This week I'd like to examine the 3rd Edition of Dungeons & Dragons. Have you played it before? or are you still playing it? What do you think about it?

By "played," I mean that you've been either a player or a DM for at least one gaming session. By "playing," I mean you have an ongoing gaming group that still actively plays this version, however occasionally. And for the purpose of this survey, I'm only referring to the D&D 3e/3.5e rules set, first published in 2000 and updated in mid-2003. You remember it; it was the "dungeonpunk" version with the Sword and Tome on the cover:

View attachment 121019 View attachment 121020

This was a brand-new edition of the game, like nothing that any of us had ever seen. Nearly all of the dice mechanics had been stripped out and rebuilt from the ground up, and the love-it-or-hate-it THAC0 mechanic was gone. Combat was expanded to play more like a tactical mini-game. All character classes used the same XP table. Barbarians and Monks were core races. And so on. Seriously, I could write a thousand words on the differences between 3rd Edition and AD&D, and not even cover half of it. So much had changed, that it created a split in the gaming community that still hasn't quite healed.

But the biggest accomplishment of this edition was ultimately its doom: the Open Gaming License. Wizards of the Coast decided to make the 3rd Edition of D&D an open-source system, which allowed authors to write new D&D material without needing direct approval. This made it incredibly easy to market D&D-compatible content under their label and suddenly, D&D was everywhere. The D&D Renaissance had begun.

Now I know that some of you expected me to separate out these two versions into different surveys, the way I did for B/X and BECMI. But I didn't for several reasons: one, these two editions used the same mechanics; two, these editions had the same contributing authors; and three, the v3.5 rules were intended to be a rules update and not a completely new release. No, 3.5E doesn't merit it's own survey.

Feel free to add nuance in your comments, but let's not have an edition war over this. I'm really just interested in hearing peoples' stories of playing the 3E rules, and swimming in all of the OGL content that came with it. I know that this edition, and the ones to follow, are going to cause some strong feelings for folks. I also know that some people on this board still consider themselves to be soldiers in an ongoing Edition War. So I'm asking you to just...not. Don't bait the trolls, and don't be the troll that takes their bait. Just reminisce with me, be respectful of other people and their experiences, and save your attack rolls for the tabletop.

Tune in next week for one of the most controversial editions in recent memory...4th Edition!

Other Surveys
OD&D
Basic D&D
B/X D&D
AD&D 1E
BECMI / Rules Cyclopedia
AD&D 2E

I've been playing RPG's since I first ran into Dungeons and dragons back in 1972. In my long experience with RPGs the quality of the game system is a direct function of the people in your gaming circle.
RPGs were originally intended to be social games though the age of the internet has changed that in some ways just as it has everything else and not all of those changes are good.

Note in my opinion there are two types of people involved in role playing RPGs and they don't mix well. Type I are the problem solvers. These are the guys that really get into the nuts and bolts of the system and find out how to maximize their character's abilities to solve a given set of probems inherent in the situation the DM has set for them. The other type I refer to as frustrated actors. They seem far more inclined to maximizing the melodrama than solving the actual problem before them.

Always know what you want out of the game and find milieus in which you can maximize your chances of getting it This is no only for your benefit but for that of your playing partners as well.

 

[Son of the Serpent]

I've been playing RPG's since I first ran into Dungeons and dragons back in 1972. In my long experience with RPGs the quality of the game system is a direct function of the people in your gaming circle.
RPGs were originally intended to be social games though the age of the internet has changed that in some ways just as it has everything else and not all of those changes are good.

Note in my opinion there are two types of people involved in role playing RPGs and they don't mix well. Type I are the problem solvers. These are the guys that really get into the nuts and bolts of the system and find out how to maximize their character's abilities to solve a given set of probems inherent in the situation the DM has set for them. The other type I refer to as frustrated actors. They seem far more inclined to maximizing the melodrama than solving the actual problem before them.

Always know what you want out of the game and find milieus in which you can maximize your chances of getting it This is no only for your benefit but for that of your playing partners as well.

Am i weird for wanting equal parts dense world/theme creation and problem solving? I feel in the middle of something somehow.

Type 1+2?

 

[Garyda]

Am i weird for wanting equal parts dense world/theme creation and problem solving? I feel in the middle of something somehow.

Type 1+2?

Of course you can have both. those are the best games. And a good DM will create as complete a world as he can. NOte not being omnipotent omniscient and omnipresent however much us DM's might relish the idea there will always be some holes the trick is to spot them before they become a problem. AS a player try not to get lost in either one or the other. Part of the problem solving is and should be playing the character.

 

[Garyda]

When it first came out, 3e seemed the answer to all my prayers. Easy mechanics! Half-orcs! Take any class you want whenever you want, and as many levels as you want!

I griped at 3.5 bit agreed with Monte Cook: it was an improvement and since everything from then on would be 3.5 I might as well pick it up.

Over time, I came to really dislike the edition. It isn't terrible per se, but just has too many rules and too much contradictions. Like in 2e, there are tons of restrictions that feel arbitrary and unnecessary, but unlike in 2e, ignoring those restrictions would massively imbalance the game and just make it no fun for anyone.

Pathfinder helped a bit but doubled down on on the too many rules problem.

You Would have hated I.C.E.

 

[Longspeak]

When 3.0 came out, I'd already stopped playing D&D. BUT... one of my favorite game authors at the time (Tweet) had been hired to work on 3.0, AND my brother worked for WotC. So, when he gave me basically all the books for Christmas, I gave 'em a read. I liked some of the changes I saw, but I'd been doing some very different stuff by then, and saw too much of the older versions. So I read it... but that's it.