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

[Voadam]

I think you got that wrong. In 3.5 if a skill is on class skill list for any of classes of your multi class build, it's class skill for your character. So you add up all your skill points for all the levels, mark all class skills for all classes, and max rank is you character level + 3. What PF did is streamlined it in a sense that max rank=character level, class skills get +3 bonus, non class skills don't get bonuses, but both class and cross class skills cost same amount of points per rank. So no, in PF, your class (or classes) determine what skills get class skill bonus.

It's been over a decade when i last played, so i checked SRD for 3.5 on multiclass characters.

That is only max rank. 3.5 does not retroactively give you skill ranks if you took a cross class skill then later multiclass so it is now a class skill. There is also the x4 at first level. When you spend your skill points in 3.5 matters.

A sneaky tough guy type taking a level of fighter then a level of rogue is very different on skills than a sneaky tough guy type who took a level of rogue then a level of fighter. In Pathfinder they are the same for their skills though.

Each skill point you spend on a class skill gets you 1 rank in that skill. Class skills are the skills found on your character’s class skill list. Each skill point you spend on a cross-class skill gets your character 1/2 rank in that skill. Cross-class skills are skills not found on your character’s class skill list. (Half ranks do not improve your skill check, but two 1/2 ranks make 1 rank.) You can’t save skill points to spend later.

The maximum rank in a class skill is the character’s level + 3. If it’s a cross-class skill, the maximum rank is half of that number (do not round up or down).

Regardless of whether a skill is purchased as a class skill or a cross-class skill, if it is a class skill for any of your classes, your maximum rank equals your total character level + 3.

 

[GrimCo]

Guess we all interpreted the rules wrong (and by we, I mean multiple tables with different people and DMs). We always just checked all class skill, combined points and then distributed them when creating higher level multiclass character, or once it's on your list, now it's on the class skill list, no matter what class you are leveling up, you always buy it as a class skill. As i said, haven't touched 3.5 PHB for almost 15 years and used mostly SRD for the last few years of playing 3.5.

 

[haakon1]

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.

Me too.

 

[Yora]

My plan for trying 3rd edition again is to cap all characters at 12th level, use only PHB classes, and no prestige classes at all. (Plus Expanded Psionic Handbook, because I feel fancy.)

With the PHB classes and 6th level spells, I feel like you can properly represent all the AD&D campaign settings. You won't feel changes to the worldbuilding because certain spells no longer exist. (Though I think that might already be mostly the case with 5th level spells.)
And at 8th level, a well prepared party that has advanced warning of what it will face can take on pretty much any classic D&D monster except for the very largest of dragons and highest tiers of fiends. You can bring down old dragons, beholders, and liches.

I feel that after 10th-12th level, there's not really any new new possibilities opening up, other than fighting the same fights only bigger (and more bloated).
But I still have to see how that actually plays out in practice.

 

[Orius]

The main thing that has given me a new interest in 3rd edition is that it provides you with mechanics to cover all the things that could happen in an AD&D campaign, without having to deal with the AD&D mechanics.

Same here.

AD&D can be a pain to work with, and it's a different types of pain depending on if you're using 1e or 2e. 3e is more internally consistent and integrates the different systems better.

High level D&D play having problems is one of D&D's biggest Franchise Original Sins*. The problem goes all the way back to Supplement I: Greyhawk where MUs get spells up to 9th level, but for anyone who isn't a caster, the game stops being fun around name level. It's murkier prior to 3e, but still present because I've seen people comment how AD&D and Classic also starts breaking down after levels 10-12 except that it's more noticable in 3e because of the steeper power curve. Honestly leveling probably should stop around level 10 with the best spells and items and toughest enemies being based around level 10 rather than 20. The game was originally built around about 10 levels, though it varies by class, and higher level stuff does feel tacked on and not necessarily even worth it. But that runs the risk of making people unhappy about losing level 7+ spells.

*TVTropes has a rather extensive listing of D&D's sins, but high level play isn't one of them. The closest they come is discussing Linear Warriors Quadratic Wizards which tops the list, but I consider that a symptom of the high level play problem, rather than a problem itself.

 

[MuhVerisimilitude]

After having thought some more about 3.0 and 3.5 (and also PF1) I think their greatest weakness is how difficult they are to run as a GM. So much of their design is really difficult to work with as a GM unless you have a premade adventure to run. Stat blocks, for example, require on-the-fly recalculation of things like Power Attack and other feats. Monsters and NPCs are difficult to build too. Buff spells are a nightmare.

I think the system itself works much better for players than it does for game masters unless there are premade modules involved.

My favourite thing is probably the amazing build variety that is possible.

 

[Deset Gled]

My plan for trying 3rd edition again is to cap all characters at 12th level, use only PHB classes, and no prestige classes at all. (Plus Expanded Psionic Handbook, because I feel fancy.)

My method to keep 3.x under control was a bit more permissive. Each player could use the core books, plus any one splat book of their choice. IMO, this allowed players to really explore and enjoy the vast amount of truly interesting and creative supplements, but pevented most of the wacky, overpowered, overly complicated stuff that came from hyper-optimizing.

One of these days, I really want to get a good 3.x game going with a VTT. I really liked the crunchiness of 3.x, and I suspect the VTT will help it a lot.

 

[Orius]

It's something of a conventional wisdom to limit the number of books in 3e, but I'm not sure that it really solves the problem. Dedicated charopers still find ways to break the game even with core. Banning the problem material that contributes to powercreep is my preferred approach. That means cutting a lot of base and prestige classes as well as the worst feats and magic. Agreements to not break the game may very well be necessary too.

 

[Deset Gled]

Dedicated charopers still find ways to break the game even with core.

There are some things aren't perfectly balanced (what game is?), and there are certainly things that change the game one way or the other if included (like 3.0 haste). But I'm not aware of anything that would be considered "broken" in the core.

 

[GrimCo]

Core as it gets. Cleric. Animate dead. Desecrate (not sure if its in PHB). Death domain. You can control up to 4HD of created undead per caster level. Animate dead is lv3 spell, so at that level, thats 20HD of undead. Sure, they are skeletons or zombies, but you have nice bunch of them as meat shields that screw up action economy.