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

[Orius]

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 think you're probably right. I was never a fan of the charopers myself or their approaches to the game. And I think some of the powercreep added to the system over time was partially the result of WotC paying to much attention to their complaints.

 

[BigZebra]

Also, didn't the internet play a part? For the first few years, you couldn't just Google 'druid power build' and get a recipe for making your DM cry. You had to build from what you had in your books. Modern games have to take that into account. That's what I like about PF2. They tried to lift the strategic decisions of the build out of the game and put in tactical decisions at the game table instead, kind of like 4e. (Unfortunately, many other things about PF2 don't gel with me.)

 

[GrimCo]

They might be thinking of PF2e.

Could be. But when someone mentions PF in 3.x context, it's usually about PF1 (or like some like to call it 3.75).

 

[rabindranath72]

I think you're probably right. I was never a fan of the charopers myself or their approaches to the game. And I think some of the powercreep added to the system over time was partially the result of WotC paying to much attention to their complaints.

Definitely. At my table we stayed with 3.0, never used any of the splats, kept playing with an "AD&D mind", and never had any major issues.

 

[Voadam]

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 think a lot of slowness in combat is inherent in core mechanics.

Stuff like dodge and power attack introduce fiddly little speed bump choices and round to round recalculations from level one. Some can get it down to flowing smoothly, others recalculate their whole attack from scratch every attack.

The higher level you get the more moving pieces there are to track across the board on characters and monsters and a lot are really fiddly and situation specific.

Summon monster and summon animals and animal companions are core options that make taking a turn take longer from messing with action economy.

Ability damage and buffs can slow things down to recalculate bonuses for a lot of aspects.

Dispel magic and greater dispel magic cause a lot of recalculation in the middle of a fight.

Buffs cast in combat require fiddly duration tracking, often for rounds equal to level meaning they probably last longer than the combat at mid to high level unless it is one that unexpectedly goes long in which case it becomes relevant so you still need to track them.

Even iteratives and multiattack generally mean doing attacks one by one for the different attack bonuses instead of rolling three attack roll dice at once.

 

[Orius]

That's a reason I'm considering dialing back the total number of bonuses that can stack at once. That way, the players can benefit from more than one, but not have so many that it slows things down or requires a spreadsheet or something. Some of it too is the nature of high level play getting more complex, but I've talked about that before -- soft capping around level 10, putting less emphasis on the dungeon and more on traditional late game stuff like dominions, etc.

 

[rabindranath72]

I have always been extremely stingy with magic items (since the BECMI days; carried this habit well into 3e), way below the averages in the 3.0 DMG (actually bordering on the bare minimum), so stacking of bonuses has rarely been problematic. I also use the DMG variant "power ingredients" for the construction of magic items, so it's completely out of the control of the players: to obtain power ingredients, they have to go on adventures, which in turn consume resources. For some magic items, there are no known power components at all (bye bye wands of cure light wounds!) I also use training, which means consuming monetary resources; and if the environment and the trainers are not suitable/available, no multiclassing is possible. But demihumans can multiclass from 1st level (per 3.0 DMG guidelines), although, again per 3.0 DMG, not all demihumans can access all classes (I generally follow the AD&D guidelines for possible combinations.) Finally, no prestige classes (unless they are strongly tied to setting elements, like the Knights of Solamnia; but even then, I generally prefer to work with base, PHB-only, classes.)

 

[Thomas Shey]

Could be. But when someone mentions PF in 3.x context, it's usually about PF1 (or like some like to call it 3.75).

I agree, but if someone has been doing 2e they may misremember it applying to 1e too.

 

[Schmoe]

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!

3.5 is my favorite edition (I've played everything except 4e), and I'm still playing it today. I definitely agree with the three points you've listed here. In my experience playing with friends, and by sticking with #1, I've never had issues with power gamers, and the game is still quite manageable for me. I'm quite a bit more lenient than "Core only", but still, DM control is very important.

 

[nevin]

Also, didn't the internet play a part? For the first few years, you couldn't just Google 'druid power build' and get a recipe for making your DM cry. You had to build from what you had in your books. Modern games have to take that into account. That's what I like about PF2. They tried to lift the strategic decisions of the build out of the game and put in tactical decisions at the game table instead, kind of like 4e. (Unfortunately, many other things about PF2 don't gel with me.)

yep and it's hurt MMO's and most other games that are played by more than one person at a time not just D&D.