D&D 3.x I miss 3.5 edition

[Edgar Ironpelt]

I like crunch. I also find that 3.x has a number of fussy bits that can stand to be simplified.

Instead of "Dodge feat gives conditional +1 AC vs a specified opponent" make it "Dodge feat gives +1 Dodge bonus to AC." Instead of tracking multiclass skill points separately, just gestalt the multiclass character's class skill list - a class skill for any of his classes is a class skill for all his classes. Or drop the concept of "cross class" skills entirely. Instead of tracking how many arrows hit (and are auto-lost) vs how many missed (50% chance of recovery), just allow recovery of half of all arrows (or 50% chance each if only a few) whether or not they hit or miss. And so on and so forth.

One big 'simplification' I do is a blanket-ban on Prestige Classes, but I recognize that that's not for everyone

 

[Thierry-Advent]

We had a lot of fun with my d20 Modern + Apocalypse + Future gonzo campaign. Bought every Modern splat book (good and bad). I also did a home-brew Pirates of the Red Sands 3.5 campaign with pirate and corsair ships that skimmed just above the desert and sand sharks.

I kind of miss it, but I know now, it's a nostalgic feeling because when I reread the rules last winter, I couldn't GM 3.5 or D20 Modern now.

 

[Schmoe]

I like crunch. I also find that 3.x has a number of fussy bits that can stand to be simplified.

Instead of "Dodge feat gives conditional +1 AC vs a specified opponent" make it "Dodge feat gives +1 Dodge bonus to AC." Instead of tracking multiclass skill points separately, just gestalt the multiclass character's class skill list - a class skill for any of his classes is a class skill for all his classes. Or drop the concept of "cross class" skills entirely. Instead of tracking how many arrows hit (and are auto-lost) vs how many missed (50% chance of recovery), just allow recovery of half of all arrows (or 50% chance each if only a few) whether or not they hit or miss. And so on and so forth.

<snip>

I definitely agree with this. I made the exact same change to Dodge. A lot of the feats are crap because they are fiddly, and it's both a lot easier and a lot more satisfying to just get rid of the fiddly bits.

 

[Edgar Ironpelt]

I definitely agree with this. I made the exact same change to Dodge. A lot of the feats are crap because they are fiddly, and it's both a lot easier and a lot more satisfying to just get rid of the fiddly bits.

I love skills and feats, and consider them the best part of 3.5e. But I sometimes get the impression that the designers, or a faction within the design group, didn't like them and wanted to nerf them.

Other times it seemed to be a matter of "this looks elegant in theory" so they used it, and it turned out to be a PITA in practice.

 

[Doctor Futurity]

I really miss 3.5. I bought enormous amount of books, and I have fond memories of it despite its downfalls. I know it's not perfect especially after level 10 or so. But I don't mind that. A high level character should be overwhelmingly strong in my opinion.

I've not played a character very high in 5th ed yet, so i can't say how it feels, but it doesn't seem like it would be terrible powerful. Is it? Do you guys have experience with the level 15+ 5e characters?

I ran a campaign all the way to level 27 and it was a trip. Loads of fun! But most of my groups ran out of steam around level 15. The common factor in a group's long term viability was how many rules lawyers and min/maxers were in it. My game that made it to level 27 had none of either type so we managed to have fun the whole way without rules optimization destroying the experience.

 

[Reynard]

I've not played a character very high in 5th ed yet, so i can't say how it feels, but it doesn't seem like it would be terrible powerful. Is it? Do you guys have experience with the level 15+ 5e characters?

I just finished a 5.5 campaign at 18th level and once the PCs hit 13th-ish, they really started getting super-heroic. The battlemaster fighter, in particular, if given the opportunity to unleash could do ridiculous damage. In the first round of the final boss fight of the campaign, he did 220 points of damage on his turn.

 

[Celebrim]

I love skills and feats, and consider them the best part of 3.5e. But I sometimes get the impression that the designers, or a faction within the design group, didn't like them and wanted to nerf them.

D&D's designers have always erred on the side of making any newly introduced thing weaker than necessary. The same problem occurred with NWPs when they were introduced.

It's one of the reasons why spellcasters have always excelled. Spells were introduced already quite strong, and over time they've trended toward being even stronger and less restricted in their use. So they always tend to outpace any other mechanic as a source of narrative power in the hands of the player.

 

[MichaelSomething]

Almost 150 posts deep and no one thought to bring up the Commoner class??? For shame. I thought Enworld was filled with passionate world builders who would appreciate such tools that allowed them to fully realize a living, breathing world. Instead, I hear endless talk about player options and rules.

 

[cbwjm]

Almost 150 posts deep and no one thought to bring up the Commoner class??? For shame. I thought Enworld was filled with passionate world builders who would appreciate such tools that allowed them to fully realize a living, breathing world. Instead, I hear endless talk about player options and rules.

That was a good option, probably didn't need more than a few levels though. I actually quite liked the NPC classes as options but I also didn't feel the need to build out too many commoners. I would be happy with a level 10 commoner who had 4 hit points.

 

[delericho]

Instead of tracking how many arrows hit (and are auto-lost) vs how many missed (50% chance of recovery), just allow recovery of half of all arrows (or 50% chance each if only a few) whether or not they hit or miss. And so on and so forth.

If you're going to track arrows at all (which, to be honest, I don't recommend), I'd suggest increasing a quiver from 20 (IIRC) to 30, and ruling that all arrows are automatically lost.