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

[Filthy Lucre]

3.5 was the GOAT.

 

[Sacrosanct]

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.

 

[teitan]

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.

I don't see where anything in my comment contradicts you're own. I said to a lesser extent.

 

[Greg K]

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.

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]

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.

Yeah that was my recollection as well.

 

[Filthy Lucre]

Yeah that was my recollection as well.

woopsiedaisy.gif

 

[nevin]

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.in

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.

 

[nevin]

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.

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.

 

[nevin]

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.

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..

 

[Greg K]

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.

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)