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

[MuhVerisimilitude]

It was hideous. Pathfinder improved it quite a lot by getting rid of skill points, removing skill synergies, removing redundant skills and downplaying prestige classes (ewww). Too bad it made the system fiddly in other ways instead (backgrounds were not a good idea imo).

Edit:

Positives: compared to 5E it actually has character options for non-casters, which is great.

But there are too many details to track for a GM. The monster stat blocks were terrible, for example.

 

[Thomas Shey]

But there are too many details to track for a GM. The monster stat blocks were terrible, for example.

Its hard to understate how complex something (on the face of it) as simple as having a 16th level wizard and two 14th level fighter bodyguards as opponents were.

(It didn't help that by that level CR had completely broke down).

 

[Zardnaar]

Main thing I miss from 3E is fluff, dungeon magazines and some adventures.

3E had some sweet adventures. Ran great under 5E

 

[Flynn Flanagan]

Played and ran 3.0 a bunch. My gang had plenty of fun with it, but we eventually got tired of the game-within-the-game of having to laboriously plan out and min/max PC builds. We also eventually found the skill system to be too fiddly. I'm running simpler systems these days.

 

[Yora]

I ran 3rd edition from 2000 to about 2009, and Pathfinder a little bit longer.

At that point, I really didn't like the system. It just wasn't providing the experience that I wanted to get out of campaigns. I thought it was actually pretty bad. Too clunky, too slow, too bloated.

But a few months ago I was thinking about some of the books that I really liked (Manual of the Planes, Lords of Madness, Expanded Psionics Handbook, and some Forgotten Realms books), and after a more than 10 year break and having learned a lot about other RPGs, I think the main game engine might actually have some really good uses, if the core mechanics of the game are being applied by the GM in the proper ways. I have a very strong suspicion that the main problem with 3rd edition's slowness and bloat was actually the culture around the game, rather than the core mechanics themselves.

I'm currently very interested in taking the game out for a campaign again with just the Player's Handbook and Expanded Psionics Handbook for character options, and trying to apply the kind of gamemastering style and adventure structure that I have developed since. I think there could actually be amazing stuff there.

 

[haakon1]

2. About level 14 it became an impossible bear to run

Agree with that. But Inever liked high level play anyhow.

 

[haakon1]

Many people complained about the min/max potential and while the ceiling for power was certainly high I have found as I play with a wider variety of people and systems that min/max is a mindset and if someone in you group has it they're going to try and 'win' no matter balanced the rules system is.

I agree. I still think 3.5e is the best version of D&D, under the right condition:

1) A DM who controls the rule set, rather than anything and everything. For me, that’s Core Rules only.

2) Stop before you get into the unplayably complicated Supers levels. I agree 14 is the top.

3) Don’t obsess over“balance” an min-max. Most of the noise about these are online FUD rather than things that happen in real campaigns among friends. Play with people who want to be a team, not trying to one-up your teammates or complaining you think their character is “better”. Play to play, not to argue!

 

[GrimCo]

It was hideous. Pathfinder improved it quite a lot by getting rid of skill points, removing skill synergies, removing redundant skills and downplaying prestige classes (ewww). Too bad it made the system fiddly in other ways instead (backgrounds were not a good idea imo)

Sorry, what? PF did streamline skills, but there are still skill points and book keeping. Synergies were optional rule if i remember correctly. I know lots of people didn't use synergies rules.

Prestige classes in PF were a mixed bag, same as in D&D. Some are excellent, some just bad.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Agree with that. But Inever liked high level play anyhow.

As I said, the fact the game was supposed to support that was one of its virtues to me, so the fact it was more in theory than in practice just doubled-down on its downsides.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Sorry, what? PF did streamline skills, but there are still skill points and book keeping. Synergies were optional rule if i remember correctly. I know lots of people didn't use synergies rules.

Prestige classes in PF were a mixed bag, same as in D&D. Some are excellent, some just bad.

They might be thinking of PF2e.