D&D 3.x I miss 3.5 edition

[neceros]

Again, players ruined 3.5. They decided that all they wanted was min maxing, and it literally ruined the game.

I think this is a bit overly dramatic.

 

[cbwjm]

Again, players ruined 3.5. They decided that all they wanted was min maxing, and it literally ruined the game.

I think it may have been more the perpetually online players who participated in build analysis that ruined the game. Most players that didn't spend a lot of time in optimisation forums trying to perfect a build played 3e without causing any issues.

 

[neceros]

I think it may have been more the perpetually online players who participated in build analysis that ruined the game. Most players that didn't spend a lot of time in optimisation forums trying to perfect a build played 3e without causing any issues.

I agree. This isn't a D&D 3 specific issue. Gamers do this to everything.

 

[DeadlyUematsu]

I think this is a bit overly dramatic.

It is not. I ran a year-long 3.5e campaign back in 2022. Established as a "class tier 3-4" campaign with very little additional house rules for balancing and the like, players had to make do without clerics, wizards, druids, etc. What were the side conversations like? Players wanting to play artificers, dread necromancers, etc. and weaponizing falling damage through spell usage. In the context of the game, their characters were superbly powerful (they were never threatened save for a handful of encounters) but that wasn't enough. They wanted more - more leverage, more exploits, more ways to bend and break the system. The standard of "strong enough for the game" was not at all a consideration. This is what I believe Reynard is getting at. While not all players do it, there is a strong contingent within the 3.5e player base who are desirous to dive straight into excess even in a deliberately bounded campaign.

 

[Reynard]

I agree. This isn't a D&D 3 specific issue. Gamers do this to everything.

Are you suggesting that D&D 3.5 was not specially subject to min-maxing? Because if so,I am sorry to say i really can't take your view on the subject seriously.

 

[neceros]

It is not. I ran a year-long 3.5e campaign back in 2022. Established as a "class tier 3-4" campaign with very little additional house rules for balancing and the like, players had to make do without clerics, wizards, druids, etc. What were the side conversations like? Players wanting to play artificers, dread necromancers, etc. and weaponizing falling damage through spell usage. In the context of the game, their characters were superbly powerful (they were never threatened save for a handful of encounters) but that wasn't enough. They wanted more - more leverage, more exploits, more ways to bend and break the system. The standard of "strong enough for the game" was not at all a consideration. This is what I believe Reynard is getting at. While not all players do it, there is a strong contingent within the 3.5e player base who are desirous to dive straight into excess even in a deliberately bounded campaign.

@Reynard

That isn't an edition issue. That is a player issue. I was part of many gaming groups where this was not a problem.

Was 3rd capable of this? Obviously yes. But people can do it with any source that has enough options and the ability to mix and match. People do it in 5e, too.

 

[DeadlyUematsu]

Are you suggesting that D&D 3.5 was not specially subject to min-maxing? Because if so,I am sorry to say i really can't take your view on the subject seriously.

When Dragon Magazine initially switched over to 3.0e, it became littered with all of these optimization suggestions (I think) titled Power Plays. It was an immediate reversal from what came before that it is easy to conclude the optimization focus was a part of the marketing/adoption strategy.

 

[VHawkwinter]

After a decade of PF1 I tried 5e for a bit, and realised that while it "fixed" my problems with 3.x, it did so while introducing a bunch of new problems that bothered me even more, and removed everything I liked about 3.x. Going back to it, I would run a mashup of 3.0, 3.5, and PF1 (more 3.0 and PF1 than 3.5), if my WIP system wasn't finished. The shallowness of 5e combat, the heavily limited character customisation (I want playable monsters by default), the hoards of missing FR Content, and the scantness of noncombat game mechanics, make it a nope for me, but I know some people who love it.

 

[VHawkwinter]

By the time of 3.5, all the best books and ideas had already been published.

Aside from parts of the PHB3.5 and the MM3.5 (sort of) and about half of the 3.5 Forgotten Realms books, I agree with you. 3.0 was much better. I ran 3.0 with a small subset of 3.5 books until 2007 or 2008.

 

[VHawkwinter]

we had people in the group who were perfectly ABLE to design game-breaking builds- myself included. All but one player was a longtime participant in the hobby before we wound up gaming together. The guy I knew best, I’d been gaming with for a decade before, and his Wizards from AD&D on all had essentially the same optimized spell list. Another was a CRPG programmer for a major company.

But nobody was willing. Nobody wanted to be “that dude” who was spoiling the game for everyone else.

Yeah, I was in a similar boat. A friend was GMing a PF1 game once and I asked: "Yes, I could, but when have I ever built a character that breaks the game?" lightbulb moment - "All I want is to be reasonably effective, and build a character with a gameplay loop that's not boring when I'm a player. Which is why all of my characters are built around doing something other than direct damage."