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

[haakon1]

Honestly; the only way to play it is to limit every PC

It’s only broken if someone breaks it. I solved that by yes, limiting players to using the 3.5 PHB as their only rule source - everything splat needs to be rule by rule approved by me (theDM) and listed on their character sheet in verbatim detail.

But more importantly, my players have been never interested in power gaming - nor have I or they been particularly interested in crunch.

For us, the rules are what they were in AD&D - a means to an end to telling a story together. The “goal” of having a better build than other players was never what any of wanted. I’ve specifically said to players - “I haven’t seen someone do this before” - as in, it’s suboptimal - and been told, that’s OK, that’s how I want my character to be.

Sounds like tge problem with 3.5e for you is you don’t like power gaming either, but felt forced to do it?

 

[haakon1]

There is no one answer I have for this.

When 3.0 first came out, I fell in love with it. Hard. My favorite system even with the years of great adventures I played in AD&D 2nd.

When I finally ended the last 3.5 camapign I was running (well into the 4e era), I hated the system with a passion. High level prep as a DM was so intensive.

...

So 3.0 with core only was an amazing step forward. 3.5 core is likely the same thing. Adding in a few splat books might be okay. My loathing of the system was love twisted by a player-crunch-every-month hardcover book to buy and incorporate.

Great explanation - I loved it for the reasons you did, and still love it because I avoided the traps. I was a “core books only” DM since A&D times.

I thought Unearthed Arcana (AD&D “1.5e“) had too much bloat so I never allowed most of it, and 2e was packed with splat, so I preemptively banned it all - not allowed without rule by rule request and permission - before anything more than core books came out. A constantly changing rules set made no sense to the stories I wanted to tell.

The point about too much prep at high levels is true. I enjoy prep, but it can definitely be a burden. The highest PC I’ve seen in 20 years playing or running it was 13th or 14th. I never liked D&D as a supers game, so I didn’t see a point in continuing as PC’s after that point. Go hang out with Mordenkainen if you have his level.

 

[reelo]

Just because you have a book, doesn't mean I want you to belly up to my table and use whatever you cherry picked out of it. I don't mind giving players options, but I don't want stuff that clashes with my world building or screws up game balance, making it much more difficult to run the game. The charop crowd would opine that's crappy DMing which is an attitude that needs to be stomped.

To this day whenever someone tells me about their “build” I cringe. (...) I’m all sorts of done with with the whole plotting out a characters progression from level 1-20 with multiple class dips etc.

These are my major points of critique as well, and they still apply to 5E, ad far as I'm concerned.

 

[Mecheon]

Sounds like tge problem with 3.5e for you is you don’t like power gaming either, but felt forced to do it?

It sort of embraces that as a problem though, between the feats literately designed to punish you, to the fact that simply by playing classes from the PHB on its own in certain ways, you will out-do other members of your party, no questions asked. Just using the PHB on its own doesn't even help the problem because that's precisely were three undisputed ruling kings of the edition lie, along with classes so undertuned they literately had replacements published for them later in the edition

I love 3.5E but its issues were there from day 1, not before the endless tidal wave of splatbooks

 

[teitan]

These are my major points of critique as well, and they still apply to 5E, ad far as I'm concerned.

I see it in the forums for sure. What I see with 5e as a DM is a dialing back of the extremes of 3.x designs, more like 3.0 style with some of the better aspects of 4e. Subclasses are essentially prestige classes for example. Feats are dialed way back to what their original intent seemed to be when you read the previews on Dragon Mag for 3e. But yeah I see a lot of similar issues with 5e but you have power gamers in every game dating back to OD&D. I had a player recently tell me she wanted to multi class her character and I had to remind the party that we agreed on a houserule that optional rules were used on a case by case basis and multi classing is an optional rule. That I need danged good reasons for why and a good story reason and not just a mechanical one.

 

[Shiroiken]

Played 3E for its entire duration. I was ready for it when it came out, because IMO 2E had overextended its lifespan. I liked a lot of aspects initially, but the serious number crunching required to make a playable character was irritating. This was the beginning of character "builds," where a character was designed from level 1-20 before play even began. Prestige Classes were great in theory, but their implementation encouraged players to build towards them, as the requirements took everything to reach at minimum level. Feat chains were annoying, but honestly serviceable (I like 5E feats better). The biggest killer of 3E for me was the skill system; you either maxed something to have a chance of success or you took a 1 in it to be allowed to roll.

Side note, I really hated the fact that 3.5 was a full new set of books. A friend of mine found a list of changes online, and it was only a few pages per book.

 

[teitan]

So for those who played/play Pathfinder 1e, how does it compare? I owned it for a long time and loaned it to a friend and he never returned it which left a bitter taste in my mouth. I had bought P2 and really liked it but we decided to just play 5e instead and sold it off to a used bookstore, which I regret in retrospect because it’s a well done game. But how do 3.5 and PF compare?

 

[billd91]

At their fundamentals, they're the same game. Same basic action economy, same basic math. PF does make changes to a number of classes, restructures how combat maneuvers work (like grapple, disarm, bull rush) and rebalances a lot of monsters. Overall, I think it is an improved game.

 

[haakon1]

What I see with 5e as a DM is a dialing back of the extremes of 3.x designs, more like 3.0 style with some of the better aspects of 4e.
....
But yeah I see a lot of similar issues with 5e but you have power gamers in every game dating back to OD&D. I had a player recently tell me ... That I need danged good reasons for why and a good story reason and not just a mechanical one.

I haven’t played 5e nearly as much as 1/2/3 or 4e - only 2 games with a learning DM versus a least one campaign in the others (many, many campaigns in AD&D or 3). My impression is 1/2/3/PF1 were basically modifications of the same game - for example, Fireball, Magic Missile, Cure Light Wounds, armor, weapons all basically worked the same. 4e seemed an anomaly - having played the same classes in 1/2/3, I was like “huh” in 4e, as the rules I mentioned above all were drastically different. 5e seems “compatible enough” that I’ve used an adventure modified to 3.5, like I do with AD&D, 2e, 3.0, and PF1 material.

As for the power gamer demanding the DM justify how they DM, that makes me sad, but Rule Zero. I do try to tell every player about Rule Zero before it comes up, as I’m introducing them to the game - I’m a D&D evangelist of sort, so a lot of people’s first DM or first in decades. And when “learning DM’s” (often my players) ask me for advice, or when a player in someone else’s game, I do mention Rule Zero - it’s all their judgment - players and others can opine or advise, but not decide. Heck, I’ve asked my players to vote on some rules and been told I should figure it out!

 

[haakon1]

3e v. PF

I only played PF1 like a half dozen times, at PaizoCon (I’m a local). Seems very similar to 3.5e. As a 3.5 DM, I had no problems being a PF player with pregens. The skill list is shorter/consolidated and PF classes get a little “more”, either options or just features.

For the ever problematic Ranger, I allow some PF rules as alternatives, like Favored Terrain instead of Favored Enemy.

I used one Starfinder monster in 3.5e as well.

How does PF1 differ from PF2? Any opinions on that?