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

[haakon1]

Best way to make it work is to know your players. If they are CharOpers, you count for that in encounter design or you just don't play with them if you don't like that play style. As a DM, you sit down with people, they tell you what they want, you tell them what you want, discuss how to make it work for mutual satisfaction. If you can't find common ground, too bad, but there are different games so you all pick up something else that meshes better with everyone.

I think we agree in that.

I also think we both think trying to “break the game” is a sucky attitude to play.

I think the difference is, I’m saying “3x is great if you don’t allow sucky play styles, here’s some things I avoid“. (I suppose if you like what I think is “sucky” - sure why not - you do you.)

But I think what you’re saying is 3x can be made to suck, therefore 3x as a whole sucks. I heartily disagree with that possible strawman (though “3x sucks, 5e rulez” is a common sentiment here).

I think any RPG can be made sucky by an attitude of trying to “break“ it, but every version of D&D can be sublime if done right (for you).

 

[haakon1]

Necromancers with bunch of animated undead

By consequences, I meant my campaigns have active NPC’s and push back on behavior like this.

Where did the bodies come from? Their source, whether a village or tribe massacred, or graveyard or war dead dug up, is going to make someone angry.

In my campaigns, that someone will eventually come after you - a sheriff, a king, a sole survivor Conan guy who was outside the village/tribe when you attacked, now high level veterans whose friend’ wargraves you desecrated - somebody is coming after you.

A lot of fun in one campaign was a player who wanted a super magic item at 1st level. I gave it to them, but they discovered an issue - it used to be owned by a Death Knight who is hunting for it.

 

[GrimCo]

No, i don't think that 3.x sucks. It has sucky elements, it can be made to suck, but as a whole, it doesn't suck. Personally, I quite like it. If i want something bit crunchier than 5 e, 3x is my go to ( PF2 is too crunchy for my taste, plus layout of the book is horrible).

We just have different methods to ensure minimum amount of suck. You have strict rules. Me, i either embrace the suck and turn it to 11 for over the top campy Monty Haul power trip charop cheese galore or i simply work it out with my players counting on them to be grown adults and long time close friends who can see my argument why i would prefer some thing avoided or used as least as possible while they still get to do most of their cool concepts. In short, you adapt system, i adapt players, but we both do it so games don't suck and people we play with enjoy it.

 

[GrimCo]

By consequences, I meant my campaigns have active NPC’s and push back on behavior like this.

Where did the bodies come from? Their source, whether a village or tribe massacred, or graveyard or war dead dug up, is going to make someone angry.

In my campaigns, that someone will eventually come after you - a sheriff, a king, a sole survivor Conan guy who was outside the village/tribe when you attacked, now high level veterans whose friend’ wargraves you desecrated - somebody is coming after you.

A lot of fun in one campaign was a player who wanted a super magic item at 1st level. I gave it to them, but they discovered an issue - it used to be owned by a Death Knight who is hunting for it.

I get what you mean. I have similar style for games. I call it living sandbox. Characters are protagonists of their story, but their story is not the only story in the world. But i do more shades of grey relativistic morality. Good and evil is just a matter of perspective. If they want, players can switch sides,"BBEG" can become their boos, allay, friend. Even if you are good, your good guy friends may leave you high and dry in a pinch if that suits their goals or good organization may try to stop you if you mess with their agenda, but maybe evil cult will jump in to save your behind cause they see your actions beneficial to their goals.

 

[Voadam]

I thought we were talking about how to make 3x good?

Close, people were saying 3e was fine with just core and a few were arguing there were issues with stuff in just core.

GrimCo pointed out a way to create a “broken“ character. And you have too.

Sure, I feel there are plenty of power options in using just core stuff out of the SRD or the PH and DMG.

But, if you care about making 3x good, the answer to that issue has been given:

• if charop build is “broken” to you, don’t do it
• if a player insists on charop-ing, and the DM doesn’t think it‘s fun, the DM should shut it down. No DM “owes” you a character that is “broken”. Rule Zero exists for a reason.

It seems like you’re saying “Wine sucks because if people drink 3 bottles of it, they throw up.” Yeah, OK, then don’t abuse it. If you/the folks you’re with can’t be trusted to control themselves with wine, the DM/bartender needs to cut them off. Or maybe drink your preferred tipple/play your preferred edition if this one is a problem for you.

I am saying "use only stuff that is not "broken" to you" is a very different argument than "just sticking to core stuff everything is fine." I don't find the argument that 3e offers variants and has advice to not use stuff you don't like really that relevant without stating what you specifically cut out or which variants you use.

Restricting magic item creation, wealth by level, and inexpensive material components are decently significant changes from what I would call by the book 3e. So would be restricting characters to only take casting classes every other level.

 

[haakon1]

We just have different methods to ensure minimum amount of suck. You have strict rules. Me, i either embrace the suck and turn it to 11 for over the top campy Monty Haul power trip charop cheese galore or i simply work it out with my players counting on them to be grown adults and long time close friends who can see my argument why i would prefer some thing avoided or used as least as possible while they still get to do most of their cool concepts. In short, you adapt system, i adapt players, but we both do it so games don't suck and people we play with enjoy it.

We actually have the same kind of players and mostly the same method.

I rarely say no because there’s rarely a reason to. The last thing I said “we’ll see” was a player talking about getting two longswords and fighting two-handed when his Fighter 9/Warmaster 1. I mean, there are already rules for what happens if you do it. I think it’s weird, but I guess if he wants, he can try? (Shrug)

 

[haakon1]

I get what you mean. I have similar style for games. I call it living sandbox. Characters are protagonists of their story, but their story is not the only story in the world. But i do more shades of grey relativistic morality. Good and evil is just a matter of perspective. If they want, players can switch sides,"BBEG" can become their boos, allay, friend. Even if you are good, your good guy friends may leave you high and dry in a pinch if that suits their goals or good organization may try to stop you if you mess with their agenda, but maybe evil cult will jump in to save your behind cause they see your actions beneficial to their goals.

Yup. My players nearly allied with a cleric of Asmodeus, but decided that was probably not going to work for them.

 

[rabindranath72]

Restricting magic item creation, wealth by level, and inexpensive material components are decently significant changes from what I would call by the book 3e. So would be restricting characters to only take casting classes every other level.

Right. I guess something must be "lost in translation" as I am not a native English speaker. How would you call using rules variants from the DMG (which is one of the three core books)? I didn't add any house rules; everything I use is in the DMG. I am more than happy to learn an alternative definition to "by the book", as I am always eager to improve my knowledge of the language.
I also understand people not being familiar with any of those rules; probably only 10%-15% of the 3e DMs I have met in the last 23 years were even aware of the existences of those variant rules, and even more surprised to realise that those rules could solve some of the issues they had running the game.

 

[Maxperson]

To be fair, high levels can be fun, if you embrace the cheese and treat power creep as feature, not a bug.

Go all out, let players make their CodZillas, give them loot by the wagon load. Let them bend over Gods. Twist reality. Give them their power trip fantasy. Monty Haul game on steroids if you wish. And just watch how soon it becomes boring. Not for all, some people really love that and cudos for them, but in personal experience, most of people just stop having fun with it, game dies and you start over new campaign with normal characters.

There's a rather huge middle ground between not playing high level and high level = Monty Haul, god beating lunatics. The DM could, you know, just challenge the high level group and continue play as normal.

 

[GrimCo]

Ars poetica my friend.

Anecdotally, our 3 member lv 13 party wiped the floor with balor in 2 rounds. And those where not super optimized characters, just decently efective (my necropolitan cleric, elf wizard and half dragon warblade). At levels 15+, there are very few creatures that pose serious threat. Clerics get lv 7, wizards lv 8 spells. They are known through the world as powerful entities not to be messed with lightly. At that point, it's hard to keep game grounded when PCs can bend and break reality. It can be done, for sure. But most people agree that sweet spot for 3.x is lv 5-8. You are not to fragile, you can punch above your wight if you are prepared, but there is enough things in the world that are more powerful and scary, and martial/caster parity is still there.