When did you enjoy 3.x?

[joela]

When I read "why 3.x sucks and 4E will solve it all", I sometimes wonder if the poster enjoyed 3.x at all. Ultimately, I know they had too: like couples before a divorce, they forget what brought them together in the first place.

So, for you folks switching to 4E, what did you enjoy when you first started playing 3.x?

 

[Fallen Seraph]

For me not much, I much preferred playing WoD then D&D. It was more my friends (gaming group) who had me play D&D since that was their preferred system.

This has changed greatly with 4e, and now I would be perfectly fine playing either.

 

[pukunui]

I hadn't played any D&D for more than 5 years when I first picked up the 3.5 game. I started playing NWN around the same time, and I think I actually enjoyed the computer game more. But I got into the pen and paper game eventually and became quite the power gamer. I guess what I liked most about it was the fact that there were so many options (I got into the game in 2006, so there were already a lot of 3.5 books out) and I could spend ages working out the best mechanical combos and the like.

Then when I got into DMing, the 3.5 rules very quickly became a god-awful chore. I was already starting to dislike the game, having houseruled the hell out of it just to make it tolerable nevermind fun, when the 4e announcement was made. 4e was just the final nail in the coffin for me. I was burnt out on 3.5 after having played it for not even two years! To be honest, there were things I didn't like about it right from the start. I kept comparing it to my memories of playing 2e and a lot of things just didn't meet my standards (the vast majority of the 3.x art being one). I'll admit, though, that if I were to play 2e now, it probably wouldn't meet my standards either. Hooray for the rose-colored glasses of nostalgia!

Anyway. I can't wait for 4e. WotC is taking the game in pretty much the same direction I had been trying to take 3.5. I'm very much in their target demographic. So I'm a happy camper. Yes, there are some things I don't like about this edition already too, but they are relatively minor things compared to the things I don't like about 3.5.

 

[Jack99]

When I read "why 3.x sucks and 4E will solve it all", I sometimes wonder if the poster enjoyed 3.x at all. Ultimately, I know they had too: like couples before a divorce, they forget what brought them together in the first place.

So, for you folks switching to 4E, what did you enjoy when you first started playing 3.x?

That is was more structured and had more (and better) options than 2e.

edit: I also enjoyed the perceived notion that 3.x was better balanced than 2e. As it turns out, it was, but not nearly enough. It was still Dungeons and Spellcasters.

 

[Hambot]

No more weapon speed crap.

Wizard got to cast magic missile more than once a day at level 1.

the 3.0 rule that said as long as you can carry armor, you don't need to worry about encumbrance as long as you're not hauling treasure.

Fighter looked so cool because they got all those feats. By about level 6 reality started to sink in.

That clerics weren't weak and boring, but seemed to be able to do lots.

Funny how after playing for 2 years made the last two things I enjoyed at first start to sour the game.

 

[Boarstorm]

3.X and I have a long, sordid on-again-off-again affair.

Things would go great between us. We'd go out and do battle with the forces of darkness and stay up all night just laughing and killing orcs and generally getting to know each other. Oh sure, there was the occassional squabble, the occassional level 1 wizard eviscerated by a housecat -- but for the most part, we got on well.

And then 3.X would change. We wouldn't spend our days (and nights) slaughtering the bad guys, we'd spend them instead huddled in a circle, casting spell after spell after spell, and then waltz in only to find our foes dead of old age and boredom. Inevitably, we would go our separate ways.

But the lure of adventure is a hard addiction to master, and weeks or months later, I'd find myself back at the table and, like a burned-out junkie, rolling up yet another 1st level rogue to sate my need. We both knew it wouldn't end well, that in a few months time the game would change and we'd remember why we left in the first place, but until then... oh, until then it would be great except for the guilty knowledge that the relationship wasn't really GOING anywhere, if you know what I mean.

When it comes right down to it, I suspect E6 would have been more my cup of tea, insofar as 3e was concerned (mechanically, not thematically), but I never found a group willing to try it. They all liked the IDEA of higher level play, but the reality never quite lived up to the hype.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

When I read "why 3.x sucks and 4E will solve it all", I sometimes wonder if the poster enjoyed 3.x at all. Ultimately, I know they had too: like couples before a divorce, they forget what brought them together in the first place.

So, for you folks switching to 4E, what did you enjoy when you first started playing 3.x?

I still enjoy it. DMing is the harder part, but even that can be fun.

But your analogy with couples before a divorce seems good.

What I always liked was building complex characters. 3E gave tons of options. There was a lot of fun to be had just by building characters at home. (3E isn't the only game that did this - I had the same experience with Shadowrun).
Playing the game is also rarely boring - you can fight tactically, use special maneuvers to great benefit, and fight a diverse array of monsters.
The only class I ever hated playing was Cleric. I didn't mind the healing part so much, but I hate casting an inane number of buffs to wade into melee (and then outshine the fighter). It's not really that interesting.

Fighters I loved for the simple, butt-kicking ability of fun. Wizards and Sorcerors are great for blasting enemies, but Wizards also have the advantage of being "know-it-alls". I liked the other classes (I played them all), too, but I often returned to Fighters and Wizards. Rogue for example is great for the skill-monkeying stuff, and sneak attacking enemies is fun, too, but they have to many weaknesses (AC, HP, BAB, sneak attack dependency), so they never get me in the same comfort zone as Fighters or Wizards.

 

[That One Guy]

Anyway. I can't wait for 4e. WotC is taking the game in pretty much the same direction I had been trying to take 3.5. I'm very much in their target demographic. So I'm a happy camper. Yes, there are some things I don't like about this edition already too, but they are relatively minor things compared to the things I don't like about 3.5.

this.
I played pretty strict 3.x for four or five years. Then a lot of things seemed weird and silly (Strict Vancian magic among other things), especially when a friend got me into WoD. I pretty much only played WoD for the next year or two, and then started a 3.5 D&D game on a whim. It pretty much had 'powers' and paragon paths, and we played that for a few years. I ran a few other games, and those experiments were also extremely similar to 4e.

What did I like about 3.x, that was unique to 3.x? Very little. What did I like about 3.x? That it gave me and my friends a rules system for telling stories and having fun.

I really liked tome of battle and tome of magic. I liked warlocks, even though I say they're OP and my friends refuse to let me play them if I ever convinced anyone to DM. I liked reserve feats once those came out. I guess I liked 3.x near the end, but most people were burnt out by then.

 

[Darth Cyric]

I detested 3.0. It felt like a lot of great ideas poorly implemented and even more poorly balanced, so much so that I had gone back to 2e for a few years after.

I did make a switch to 3.5 shortly after it was released, and, to be fair, it was a touch of an improvement over 3.0 (removal of the supremely retarded partial actions, classes a fair bit more flavorful even if those not named Cleric, Druid or Wizard still sucked). But it still didn't fix a lot of what ailed 3.0. Retarded amounts of prep work as a DM, far more than in 1e or 2e. Much of which still involved arseloads of house rules (I have never played an RPG system that has required as much houseruling as 3.x). Very poorly paced combats. Woeful imbalance, also unlike anything I had ever seen in 1e or 2e. AD&D had its problems, yes, but nothing that extreme. You get the picture.

If it weren't for the timely arrivals of Tome of Battle, Player's Handbook II and the Spell Compendium, 3.5 would've fallen flat on its face much sooner than it has. Granted, those books and a couple others were testing grounds for 4e, so I give it credit for that, at least.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

I enjoy 3.5, though I don't play it all the time. You're going to get sick of a system, irregardless of what that system is, if you play it too much. When I start to tire of 3e, I'll go to Unknown Armies, CoC, or even (though this one is run sparsely because doing anything else ruins it) Promethean.

I still enjoy 3.5, and unfortunately, I don't seem to be WotC's target audience for 4e.