houser2112
Explorer
He means that if the DM plays opponents intelligently, treating spellcasters as the true dangers they are.
D&D 3E/3.5 Edition Experience - Did/Do you Play 3rd Edtion D&D? How Was/Is it?
- Thread starter CleverNickName
- Start date
teitan
Legend
When the game came out characters as “builds” weren’t a thing. You made them and took what you thought looked fun. The “builds” school of playing really became a thing with 3.5 and the emphasis on feat trees. Yes they designed 3e with system mastery as a sort of reward but it wasn’t expected to be the default that it became. Sure optimization was a thing in 2e but it was really discouraged and mocked as munchkinism or “roll” play.
This x 100000000. If the players can do it the bad guys can do it. Also if you dont have big bad weapons that scare the mages you are doing it wrong. Also if the mage always gets to prepare for whats coming you are wrong.
fearsomepirate
Hero
The DM walks in, hoists his bag onto the table, and starts pulling out an array of D&D 3.5 books. The party looks on as he find a tattered, spiral-bound notebook.
"You meet in a tavern. A shadowy figure approaches you."
The party groans. They already know they've heard this one before. The voice of an elderly man croaks out from underneath the hood.
"Our land is ravaged; our people are dying! We need heroes to rescue us!"
The cleric responds, "Yes, yes, evil being of great power, we must go defeat him, blah blah blah. Who is he, and where do we go."
"He is known only as...Pun-Pun."
Last edited:
By mages are “crunchy”, I mean they are easy to kill - that’s the balance, just as it was in AD&D and 2e. Cool powers, but first to die if your opponents are fighting to win.
Looks like other folks translated for me.
Last edited:
houser2112
Explorer
I can kind of see the confusion. The usual term for a character that has low armor/HP and is easily killed is "squishy" IME (both tabletop and digital games). In a tabletop context, I've only heard "crunch" used to describe content that is rules-facing, as opposed to "fluff", which is story-facing.By mages are “crunchy”, I mean they are easy to kill - that’s the balance, just as it was in AD&D and 2e. Cool powers, but first to die if your opponents are fighting to win.
Looks like other folks translated for me.
Gladius Legis
Hero
OK, gotcha.By mages are “crunchy”, I mean they are easy to kill - that’s the balance, just as it was in AD&D and 2e. Cool powers, but first to die if your opponents are fighting to win.
Looks like other folks translated for me.
But with that said, between Mage Armor, Shield, False Life, and Mirror Image, even low-level Wizards in 3.5 are doing quite well defensively.
I disagree with this assessment. I actually think both 2e and 3.x did this the same way. In the early days of both editions, there were less "builds" and more free form playing. But as time went on, more and more options were introduced. Kits and special options for different settings started to take over as "builds" in 2e, just as Prestige Classes and splatbooks took over as "builds" in 3.x.
If you don't believe me, try to build a core-only, straight classed fighter in 3e. You may plan on following a single "build", but you'll only get to around level 9 before you realized you maxed out your feat tree and are forced to pick an alternate fighting style when you level up. Ditto for straight classed wizards, etc. Now, by the time Book of 9 Swords came out, it's a completely different story. Of course, by the equivalent time in its lifespan, 2e also had a million kits, splatbooks, and campaign settings, too.
I do think that the internet and made "builds" much more of a focus for some players, but I don't think there was anything inherent in either edition that was responsible for that.
Don Durito
Hero
It seemed to be very clear that in 3.0 prestige classes were considered a less central part of design at conception. Or perhaps it would be more accurate to say they were presented that way in the core books, as we don't know exactly what the design team were thinking and it didn't take very long before prestige classes went from being and interesting way to link players into setting organisations and became banal splats centred around mostly singular gimmicks.
There was always an element of 'build'. Obviously the Fighter was intended to pick feats and move up feat trees, but this was less emphasised than it later became. The fact that you had to go beyond just feat choice to make a fighter had less to with design intent then with the fact that the Fighter was just failed design.
There was always an element of 'build'. Obviously the Fighter was intended to pick feats and move up feat trees, but this was less emphasised than it later became. The fact that you had to go beyond just feat choice to make a fighter had less to with design intent then with the fact that the Fighter was just failed design.
Last edited:
Filthy Lucre
Adventurer
3.5 was the GOAT.
My vote changes completely depending on if I'm playing IRL, or if I'm playing a computer version. I really didn't like in person. Way too many modifiers to keep track of. And I really disliked the system mastery in it. I recall early on I wanted to play an arcane archer and was told by many people to not bother because they suck so bad. As someone who prefers roleplay over rollplay, it didn't bother me all that much, but still was irritating to get so much feedback on the issue.
On the computer on the other hand, I enjoyed it much better. Let the computer keep track of all the modifiers and such.
On the computer on the other hand, I enjoyed it much better. Let the computer keep track of all the modifiers and such.
teitan
Legend
I don't see where anything in my comment contradicts you're own. I said to a lesser extent.
I seem to recall Monte Cook stating somewhere that he put PrCs into the 3.0 DMG as an optional world building tool for the DM, but he never expected them to take off.
teitan
Legend
Yeah that was my recollection as well.
Filthy Lucre
Adventurer
woopsiedaisy.gif
There were optimal builds in 1st and 2e but they mostly involved, magic items, and Dual classing, multiclassing and the horrifically designed Psionics. (better in 2e than 1). But the optimizers have existed since the game started. it's not a new thing, though in 1st e especially less was spelled out in the rules so DM had far easier leeway to shut it down if it got out of control. Of course inexperienced Dm's had more leeway to blow up thier game.
Then he didn't pay attention to anything in the 2e forgotten realms book or how popular specialty priests were. I don't think I had a single just cleric from the time 2e launched to the time I started running 3e games. People ate that stuff up.
3e prior to 3.5, multiclassing was stupid. Pick any class and get the core abilities, and them play your favorite class. I don't know how many 1st level fighter, first level rogue then 11th level whatever class. It's why pathfinder/3.5 got so feat heavy and gated the abilities. But to be fair 3.0 was advertised as a game that the DM was supposed to balance. The developers never intended a game where players set down and demand to play whatever was in thier favorite splat book, because it was an official Wizards of the Coast supplement..
Well, the 2e priests of specific mythoi and, from what I recall, specialty priests were more like 3e class variants which were discussed in the 3.0 PHB and DMG (not sure about the 3.5 versions). To my disappointment, little was officially done with them (class variants) until 3.5 Unearthed Arcana (although, there were 1 or 2 class variants in 3.0 Masters of the Wild)
Similar Threads
D&D 2E
On AD&D 2E
