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

[Flexor the Mighty!]

Enjoyed playing it, despised DM'ing it. Too heavy a system, too many fiddly bits changing round by round. Heaven forbid Dispel Magic is cast on a party of mid level PC, the whole game grinds to a halt as you deal with the layers of buffs that an average party would be covered in. Just not my thing, it pushed me to lighter systems. I enjoyed the game I played but even then it seemed to be a system that was focused on the hardcore and half my table is very causal thus struggled with the piles of stuff as they rose in level.

 

[Garyda]

Enjoyed playing it, despised DM'ing it. Too heavy a system, too many fiddly bits changing round by round. Heaven forbid Dispel Magic is cast on a party of mid level PC, the whole game grinds to a halt as you deal with the layers of buffs that an average party would be covered in. Just not my thing, it pushed me to lighter systems. I enjoyed the game I played but even then it seemed to be a system that was focused on the hardcore and half my table is very causal thus struggled with the piles of stuff as they rose in level.

The balance issue for GM in my opinion isn't so much overpower but information overload. You know what your Player characters have and there stats, if you have a brain you've got a copy of their character sheets and current goodies. All you need to do is remember the basics, No one wants to hear someone else's soliloquy especially if it doesn't advance the story, no one wants to be the arch mage's wand carrier or the great knights shield bearer. You are in essence and with the help of your players creating a story and everyone needs to have a part and that part must be important enough to keep them interested and active. And the mission they are about to embark upon has to be challenging without being impossible and that means you need to understand your players and their capabilities as well as you do the game. and the characters they're playing. GM is a challenging roll and it isn't for everyone.

Oh and for what it's worth I am currently replaying Hordes of the Underdark, My current character build is a Human Level 4 fighter, level six thief level seven weapon master specializing in Short sword. In about two more levels he will be duel weilding Enserric the shortsword and the sword of quickness.

 

[ZeshinX]

I played and enjoyed it greatly and switched over to PF once 4e released. I enjoyed PF until just before Ultimate Intrigue released...it was then I rapidly lost interest once I realized the 3.x system had devolved into a feat tax/number porn game (PF really doubled down into it, which is why I skipped PF 2e entirely...as it went even further down that rabbit hole to me).

3.x was always that way, but I guess it wasn't until the absolute glut of options was there in front of me...it was the ever-increasing number of base classes that were essentially gestalts of the original base classes (practically negating the point of those original base classes) that I started to look harder....and saw it. All the fiddly little bonuses that were there for the sake of being there...the necessity of feats...just...I just tired of it suddenly.

5e ultimately swayed me over to something far simpler (but I appreciated the elegance in that simplicity without the number porn).

So, I liked 3.x, but ultimately came to loathe it. I occasionally wish I had more character options in 5e...but then I remember what 3.x became and that feeling fades almost instantly.

 

[Garyda]

I played and enjoyed it greatly and switched over to PF once 4e released. I enjoyed PF until just before Ultimate Intrigue released...it was then I rapidly lost interest once I realized the 3.x system had devolved into a feat tax/number porn game (PF really doubled down into it, which is why I skipped PF 2e entirely...as it went even further down that rabbit hole to me).

3.x was always that way, but I guess it wasn't until the absolute glut of options was there in front of me...it was the ever-increasing number of base classes that were essentially gestalts of the original base classes (practically negating the point of those original base classes) that I started to look harder....and saw it. All the fiddly little bonuses that were there for the sake of being there...the necessity of feats...just...I just tired of it suddenly.

5e ultimately swayed me over to something far simpler (but I appreciated the elegance in that simplicity without the number porn).

So, I liked 3.x, but ultimately came to loathe it. I occasionally wish I had more character options in 5e...but then I remember what 3.x became and that feeling fades almost instantly.

Takes all Kinds my friend. That for instance was the very thing I loved about it.

 

[Fenris-77]

3rd was a lot of fun. It definitely let me indulge my inner power gamer, that's for sure. Between kits, and equipment, and prestige classes, and all the splat in general, there was a ton of room to play the optimization game. The volume of detail was very cool at the time. I really don't think I'd go back though, as several people have mentioned, I'm past being interested in having to manage that much info and that many books.

 

[Azzy]

I had taken a couple years off from AD&D and discovered some rumblings about a new edition on some website by some guy named Eric Noah. I followed the rumors and the scraps of info that got shared until I was hyped and became a regular on the burgeoning boards on his site.

By the time 3e had released, I bought it as soon as possible. I loved so much of what they did to the game that I could overlook some of the things that I didn't like (like the emphasis on tactical combat and battlemats). Was a bit of a zealot buying just about everything I could (until the glut that followed 3.5), and even switched to 3.5 will only a little grumbling.

After the relase of 3.5, my attempts at trying to own all the supplements met with defeat as the release schedule ramped up faster and faster. I also started to become dismayed as to how important it was to preplan character advancement if you wanted to get certain feats and prestige classes, at some point breaking out Excel to help me with character planning. Still I felt it was a step up from AD&D.

This was also the edition that I started subscribing to both Dragon and Dungeon. Paizo rocked those magazines.

When news of 4e started to break, I was cautiously excited. I was annoyed that another edition appeared so soon, but I was also hoping that they'd fix the wonky and broken bits of the system. I started becoming concerned with the way they were marketing it, and with how they were changing the lore and representation of some of the monsters. Then when I saw that it was going to be whole different system rather than an attempt to refine, fix, and improve the existing system I said nope and continued playing 3.5 up to the playtest for "D&D Next".

 

[Olrox17]

The balance issue for GM in my opinion isn't so much overpower but information overload. You know what your Player characters have and there stats, if you have a brain you've got a copy of their character sheets and current goodies. All you need to do is remember the basics, No one wants to hear someone else's soliloquy especially if it doesn't advance the story, no one wants to be the arch mage's wand carrier or the great knights shield bearer. You are in essence and with the help of your players creating a story and everyone needs to have a part and that part must be important enough to keep them interested and active. And the mission they are about to embark upon has to be challenging without being impossible and that means you need to understand your players and their capabilities as well as you do the game. and the characters they're playing. GM is a challenging roll and it isn't for everyone.

Oh and for what it's worth I am currently replaying Hordes of the Underdark, My current character build is a Human Level 4 fighter, level six thief level seven weapon master specializing in Short sword. In about two more levels he will be duel weilding Enserric the shortsword and the sword of quickness.

Hordes of the underdark (and shadow of undretide) are great fun and still hold up to this day. Recently replayed them as a fighter/rogue/blackguard.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

The balance issue for GM in my opinion isn't so much overpower but information overload. You know what your Player characters have and there stats, if you have a brain you've got a copy of their character sheets and current goodies. All you need to do is remember the basics, No one wants to hear someone else's soliloquy especially if it doesn't advance the story, no one wants to be the arch mage's wand carrier or the great knights shield bearer. You are in essence and with the help of your players creating a story and everyone needs to have a part and that part must be important enough to keep them interested and active. And the mission they are about to embark upon has to be challenging without being impossible and that means you need to understand your players and their capabilities as well as you do the game. and the characters they're playing. GM is a challenging roll and it isn't for everyone.

Oh and for what it's worth I am currently replaying Hordes of the Underdark, My current character build is a Human Level 4 fighter, level six thief level seven weapon master specializing in Short sword. In about two more levels he will be duel weilding Enserric the shortsword and the sword of quickness.

I've been running games since the early 80's and playing with most of these guys on and off since then so I'm pretty up to speed on how to approach a campaign for them. The issue was when I had 10-12 foes on the table and they all had feats, buffs, spells, round by round conditions, that had to be managed. So yes it was information overload in that regard, when I was spending a lot of time putting together spreadsheets to manage the combats I realized there had to be a better way. It was a great spreadsheet though.

Half my table could handle 3.x fine, the other half had to be reminded constantly about all the advanced abilities and applications of those. Which was a drag. But my guys are fairly casual, only a couple read books and work on stuff away from the table, for the others game night is the only time they are doing D&D. So we gave 3.0 a try and it collapsed under its weight around 10th level and we switched back to 1e. When 3.5 came out I figured...lets try it again! And it collapsed under its weight at the same point. Also buying a book that was just to explain all the rules in other books made me think, "Flexor...why are you doing this to yourself?"

IME 3.x was great for those who loved tweaking builds and all that, which just isn't my group outside 2 players. With a die hard group who were systems masters I'm sure it ran a lot better. But my beer, whiskey, and pretzels group is another story.

Now I'm pushing them through the meat grinder in Swords and Wizardry and having a blast. But I like to game like its 1975 so its all a great fit.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

That was more or less my same experience...with 4e.

With 3e, we did better, but as the campaign went on, yeah, we also felt the weight of it too keenly. We also ended up going elsewhere, in our case over to Castles & Crusades for something simpler.

Half my table could handle 3.x fine, the other half had to be reminded constantly about all the advanced abilities and applications of those. Which was a drag.

 

[3catcircus]

The balance issue for GM in my opinion isn't so much overpower but information overload. You know what your Player characters have and there stats, if you have a brain you've got a copy of their character sheets and current goodies. All you need to do is remember the basics, No one wants to hear someone else's soliloquy especially if it doesn't advance the story, no one wants to be the arch mage's wand carrier or the great knights shield bearer. You are in essence and with the help of your players creating a story and everyone needs to have a part and that part must be important enough to keep them interested and active. And the mission they are about to embark upon has to be challenging without being impossible and that means you need to understand your players and their capabilities as well as you do the game. and the characters they're playing. GM is a challenging roll and it isn't for everyone.

Oh and for what it's worth I am currently replaying Hordes of the Underdark, My current character build is a Human Level 4 fighter, level six thief level seven weapon master specializing in Short sword. In about two more levels he will be duel weilding Enserric the shortsword and the sword of quickness.

I disagree - it is overpower along with a glut of options. There is no way that WotC ever play-tested every possible combination of options from all of their supplements and too many DMs were unwilling or unable to Rule Zero supplements.

It also didn't help when they started taking campaign setting-specific options and importing them into non-campaign supplements. Not that those were necessarily overpowered, but it introduced the implicit "it's ok to use stuff never intended to be mixed-and-matched" that made it so hard for DMs to say no. "No - you can't play a Warforged with levels in the Nar Demonbinder PrC. This campaign is set in Kalamar." Or multiple versions of the same thing. Purple Dragon Knight from Player's Guide to Faerun or from Complete Warrrior? A savvy player will argue that since it is in Complete Warrior it can be used in any campaign. A DM needs to be savvy enough to see the prerequisites, note that membership in the Purple Dragons is one of them, and then declare it not allowed in his/her non-Faerun campaign.

That, I think, is when 3.x jumped the shark - when they started recycling content in different products. I'm fine with the idea that they recycle content from a 3.0 product in a 3.5 product, if it needs to be updated. That same example of the Purple Dragon Knight? They added a requirement (Cormyr as home region or Knowledge (Cormyr local) 8 ranks) and added two skills to the class skills list (Knowledge (Cormyr local) and Knowledge (tactics)). But when they put it into the Complete Warrior? They went ahead and removed the requirement for knowledge or home region (not that big a deal) and raised the BAB prereq from +4 to +5, but also they changed the Leadership prereq to Negotiator, which removed the pre-req of being at least 6th level (Leadership's prereq). So - you could potentially have a PC take this PrC a level earlier than originally intended.

 

[Garyda]

I disagree - it is overpower along with a glut of options. There is no way that WotC ever play-tested every possible combination of options from all of their supplements and too many DMs were unwilling or unable to Rule Zero supplements.

It also didn't help when they started taking campaign setting-specific options and importing them into non-campaign supplements. Not that those were necessarily overpowered, but it introduced the implicit "it's ok to use stuff never intended to be mixed-and-matched" that made it so hard for DMs to say no. "No - you can't play a Warforged with levels in the Nar Demonbinder PrC. This campaign is set in Kalamar." Or multiple versions of the same thing. Purple Dragon Knight from Player's Guide to Faerun or from Complete Warrrior? A savvy player will argue that since it is in Complete Warrior it can be used in any campaign. A DM needs to be savvy enough to see the prerequisites, note that membership in the Purple Dragons is one of them, and then declare it not allowed in his/her non-Faerun campaign.

That, I think, is when 3.x jumped the shark - when they started recycling content in different products. I'm fine with the idea that they recycle content from a 3.0 product in a 3.5 product, if it needs to be updated. That same example of the Purple Dragon Knight? They added a requirement (Cormyr as home region or Knowledge (Cormyr local) 8 ranks) and added two skills to the class skills list (Knowledge (Cormyr local) and Knowledge (tactics)). But when they put it into the Complete Warrior? They went ahead and removed the requirement for knowledge or home region (not that big a deal) and raised the BAB prereq from +4 to +5, but also they changed the Leadership prereq to Negotiator, which removed the pre-req of being at least 6th level (Leadership's prereq). So - you could potentially have a PC take this PrC a level earlier than originally intended.

And? Like I said you are dealing with information over load. You've got to much crap going on and you're so busy looking at all the crap that you've lost sight of the primary goal which is entertainment. If all you ever do is one offs it's a problem because you never know what you are going to get. If you've got your standard group all you've got to worry about is those things particular to your group.

 

[Garyda]

I've been running games since the early 80's and playing with most of these guys on and off since then so I'm pretty up to speed on how to approach a campaign for them. The issue was when I had 10-12 foes on the table and they all had feats, buffs, spells, round by round conditions, that had to be managed. So yes it was information overload in that regard, when I was spending a lot of time putting together spreadsheets to manage the combats I realized there had to be a better way. It was a great spreadsheet though.

Half my table could handle 3.x fine, the other half had to be reminded constantly about all the advanced abilities and applications of those. Which was a drag. But my guys are fairly casual, only a couple read books and work on stuff away from the table, for the others game night is the only time they are doing D&D. So we gave 3.0 a try and it collapsed under its weight around 10th level and we switched back to 1e. When 3.5 came out I figured...lets try it again! And it collapsed under its weight at the same point. Also buying a book that was just to explain all the rules in other books made me think, "Flexor...why are you doing this to yourself?"

IME 3.x was great for those who loved tweaking builds and all that, which just isn't my group outside 2 players. With a die hard group who were systems masters I'm sure it ran a lot better. But my beer, whiskey, and pretzels group is another story.

Now I'm pushing them through the meat grinder in Swords and Wizardry and having a blast. But I like to game like its 1975 so its all a great fit.

For casual gamers I stick with stuff like settlers of cattan. Much as I love fantasy dealing with people who simply don't care enough to learn the in's and outs is a night mare.

 

[Gilladian]

I've played every edition of DnD. 3.5 (with my house rules) is the one that I can do what I like with. My group knows the rules, my campaign world is written for 3.5. We played 4e, 5e, and 2e. 3.5 is the one for us. And I own SO MUCH stuff. I have so many databases that I've created (spells, magic items, monsters, maps, NPCs, adventures) that help me use the game, as well as hundreds of wiki pages of campaign setting. I'm just too lazy to give it all up.

 

[Orius]

3.x was always that way, but I guess it wasn't until the absolute glut of options was there in front of me...it was the ever-increasing number of base classes that were essentially gestalts of the original base classes (practically negating the point of those original base classes) that I started to look harder....and saw it. All the fiddly little bonuses that were there for the sake of being there...the necessity of feats...just...I just tired of it suddenly.

3.5 proliferation of more and more base classes was one of problems with the revision. I don't like a lot of classes, and prefer to customize a smaller number of them; that is why I prefer 2e to older editions, since it attempted rather clumsily to do that with kit and later Skills and Powers. 3e did it better with skills and feats, but then 3.5 comes along and adds new base classes which basically combine other classes and further weaken the already weaker non-casters when those classes needed to be shored up. Tome of Battle is a huge offender here by trying to fix the fighter by adding more classes that make fighter even more irrelevant. That book was 3.5 rocket cycling over an ocean of sharks.

I disagree - it is overpower along with a glut of options. There is no way that WotC ever play-tested every possible combination of options from all of their supplements and too many DMs were unwilling or unable to Rule Zero supplements.

That's another big problem with 3.5, what the grognards call weakening or neutering the DM, but which I would say is "player entitlement." Just because you have a book, doesn't mean I want you to belly up to my table and use whatever you cherry picked out of it. I don't mind giving players options, but I don't want stuff that clashes with my world building or screws up game balance, making it much more difficult to run the game. The charop crowd would opine that's crappy DMing which is an attitude that needs to be stomped. 3.0's splats at least had a sentence in the intro which stated that players need DM approval first and it was stated even more strongly in 2e, but I see little of that in 3.5.

It also didn't help when they started taking campaign setting-specific options and importing them into non-campaign supplements. Not that those were necessarily overpowered, but it introduced the implicit "it's ok to use stuff never intended to be mixed-and-matched" that made it so hard for DMs to say no. "No - you can't play a Warforged with levels in the Nar Demonbinder PrC. This campaign is set in Kalamar." Or multiple versions of the same thing. Purple Dragon Knight from Player's Guide to Faerun or from Complete Warrrior? A savvy player will argue that since it is in Complete Warrior it can be used in any campaign. A DM needs to be savvy enough to see the prerequisites, note that membership in the Purple Dragons is one of them, and then declare it not allowed in his/her non-Faerun campaign.

Yeah, that's a problem. I play homebrew, so no, you are not going to bring in that Eberron/Realms/Greyhawk specific stuff into my game. If there`s a parallel in my world for that material I might use it, after I adapt and nerf the broken crap, but it is ultimately my perogative as DM to do so.

 

[teitan]

Yeah 3.5 was the edition where players took power out of the DM’s hands. When I switched to core plus 1 some of my players protested and like I noted many of the “broken builds” ignored prerequisites just to get the mechanics. To this day whenever someone tells me about their “build” I cringe. In my 5e campaign if someone comes to me with a desire to multiclass or some “build” concept I tell them to justify it in the story and if they can give me a reason beyond “it’s just cool” I will find a way to work it into the game but I’m all sorts of done with with the whole plotting out a characters progression from level 1-20 with multiple class dips etc. I don’t blame it on 3.5 as a system. I blame it one the culture that evolved out of the game with the ignoring of prerequisites and roleplaying. In 2e AD&D had a reputation for munchkin power gaming but it really came out in 3.5 especially with the relaxing of multiclassing rules. I still actually like a lot of 3e to be honest with myself more than I have in past posts. I had a complicated relationship with later evolutions of the culture that occurred. A big part of my love for 5e was that it got back to what made D&D cool while keeping the high fantasy boom.

 

[atanakar]

I've played every edition of DnD. 3.5 (with my house rules) is the one that I can do what I like with. My group knows the rules, my campaign world is written for 3.5. We played 4e, 5e, and 2e. 3.5 is the one for us. And I own SO MUCH stuff. I have so many databases that I've created (spells, magic items, monsters, maps, NPCs, adventures) that help me use the game, as well as hundreds of wiki pages of campaign setting. I'm just too lazy to give it all up.

That is not lazy. It's sensible. Keep playing the edition you clearly enjoy.

 

[3catcircus]

And? Like I said you are dealing with information over load. You've got to much crap going on and you're so busy looking at all the crap that you've lost sight of the primary goal which is entertainment. If all you ever do is one offs it's a problem because you never know what you are going to get. If you've got your standard group all you've got to worry about is those things particular to your group.

And at the time, every month or so, we'd get a "hey, I just picked up this new Complete xxx and I wanna use Feat yyy from it." or "the YYY book is out, I think I want to rrebuild my character into ridiculously overpowered PrC zzz - you need to design a rebuild quest."

 

[3catcircus]

Yeah 3.5 was the edition where players took power out of the DM’s hands. When I switched to core plus 1 some of my players protested and like I noted many of the “broken builds” ignored prerequisites just to get the mechanics. To this day whenever someone tells me about their “build” I cringe. In my 5e campaign if someone comes to me with a desire to multiclass or some “build” concept I tell them to justify it in the story and if they can give me a reason beyond “it’s just cool” I will find a way to work it into the game but I’m all sorts of done with with the whole plotting out a characters progression from level 1-20 with multiple class dips etc. I don’t blame it on 3.5 as a system. I blame it one the culture that evolved out of the game with the ignoring of prerequisites and roleplaying. In 2e AD&D had a reputation for munchkin power gaming but it really came out in 3.5 especially with the relaxing of multiclassing rules. I still actually like a lot of 3e to be honest with myself more than I have in past posts. I had a complicated relationship with later evolutions of the culture that occurred. A big part of my love for 5e was that it got back to what made D&D cool while keeping the high fantasy boom.

I'm also so tired of the "I want my character to be x and have y and do z" expecting DMs to change their campaign for that player. No, I'm not handing out a +1 flaming kukri in the treasure in this funeral cairn the party has broken into - the campaign is thematically middle ages british isles, not Indian subcontinent. Maybe there will be a sgian dubh instead. Or I might throw in a gladius left behind when the occupying invaders from the continent departed.

 

[Eyes of Nine]

I've played every edition of DnD. 3.5 (with my house rules) is the one that I can do what I like with. My group knows the rules, my campaign world is written for 3.5. We played 4e, 5e, and 2e. 3.5 is the one for us. And I own SO MUCH stuff. I have so many databases that I've created (spells, magic items, monsters, maps, NPCs, adventures) that help me use the game, as well as hundreds of wiki pages of campaign setting. I'm just too lazy to give it all up.

And I am in the exact opposite place (both of which being valid). I never played, so the thought of pulling together all the resources makes me say “nah”

 

[Son of the Serpent]

Dont know exactly when it reached it but it is at exactly 75% strictly positive votes now, and rising.

Slightly below 20% negative, and lowering.