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

[houser2112]

So as long as spellcasters intentionally play or build their characters in a suboptimal manner, the system works?

Surely you don't see the inherent problem with that?

He means that if the DM plays opponents intelligently, treating spellcasters as the true dangers they are.

 

[teitan]

So as long as spellcasters intentionally play or build their characters in a suboptimal manner, the system works?

Surely you don't see the inherent problem with that?

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.

 

[nevin]

He means that if the DM plays opponents intelligently, treating spellcasters as the true dangers they are.

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]

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.

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."

 

[haakon1]

So as long as spellcasters intentionally play or build their characters in a suboptimal manner, the system works?

Surely you don't see the inherent problem with that?

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.

 

[haakon1]

Thanks for explaining that rule in PF1. I like the running out of spells feature in 3.x and earlier as a feature - the logistical element of the game adds tension. But then crossbow as a fall back is a bit odd. Design trade offs, I suppose. Both fun games.

 

[houser2112]

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.

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.

 

[Gladius Legis]

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.

OK, gotcha.

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.

 

[Deset Gled]

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.

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]

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.