When did you enjoy 3.x?

[OchreJelly]

The nice thing is most of the innovations I really liked about 3.X are being carried over into the new system. Namely:
- Iterative initiative
- clearly defined actions. While they have changed a bit (I'm looking at you full-round action) the framework and concept remains.
- Unified resolution mechanics based around the d20.
- feats. Even more refined conceptually now, but that's only to be expected since their debut 8 years ago.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

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?

Early on. Then when 3.5 came out I enjoyed it for just a bit, before old problems like long combats and magic item bloat showed they hadn't gone away.

 

[Ingolf]

I enjoy 3.5 from ~ 3rd level up to ~ 8th. Once the 5th level spells come into play, the experience (for me and my groups) slowly turns into "lets sit around and talk about movies/baseball/video games while the spellcasters complete the adventure" experience. And as miserable as that is to play in, it's even worse to DM for. Running a 3.5 game after about 13th level was never worth the effort for me. Hours and hours of prep time that could easily be wasted at the table by simply forgetting a monster ability or not being sufficiently familiar with every trick up every sorceror or druid's sleeve.

1st Edition I played as a teenager, but I quickly got fed up with the ad-hoc nature of the rules and moved on to more structured systems. I never played 2e except for a couple 2-3 month long forays, so at this point 3/3.5 is the edition I have played the most. I haven't seen anything in 4e yet that makes me think I will miss 3.5, and honestly I have a hard time understanding those who feel the Great Wheel/Alignment System/Vancian Magic/Gnomes/CE Succubi/whatever are the things that make D&D what it is.

 

[roguerouge]

Until we ran into the will-o-the-wisp.

Immune to all spells except magic missile and gate.

...That hurt. I don't play heroic fantasy games to feel ineffectual, I have plenty of other sources for that.

I'm sure other people have pointed this out, but that monster, and the uber-AC and magic missiles only features, were straight from first edition, if not earlier. It was a classic annoying monster type designed strictly to lead you into death traps.

 

[Wolfspider]

They might go back for the same reason I go back to HERO and CoC. They are different games with different priorities and feels. They might go back for the same reasons people go back and play OD&D, 1E and 2E. I am not saying that I won't play 4E, I might it looks fun, but that I will probably play both because they have different priorities and feels. For the designers to say they won't go back says that they [sic] game isn't worth playing period. To me that comes off as saying the game sucks.

Well said. I think what you've said here sums up my feelings. Sure, the designers didn't actually outright say that 3rd edition sucked, but I've heard plenty of claims that they would never play it again. In fact, one said that the thought of playing 3rd edition instead of 4th made him want to throw up. I've heard plenty of people say that they would completely avoid anything 3rd edition, no matter who wrote it or how well it was put together, in favor of 4th edition. In fact, some have said that they were REALLY REALLY interested in a product, but that the fact it was v3.5 made them say no way.

Come on! Third edition isn't THAT bad. It has plenty of merits.

Your beloved 4th edition would never have existed without 3rd edition, so show some blasted respect.

 

[SpydersWebbing]

What did I like about 3.x? Ironically enough Tome of Battle. I've never been a fan of wizards, or even true fantasy. What I DO like, however, are kung fu movies, with the fancy fights and the beautiful moves. So my descritpions of my moves have always been rather flashy. The problem is that when I described these moves to my players they'd ask me why that didn't have a game effect. Tome of Battle came out, and I had an answer for them. Certainly balanced things out somewhat, but not completely. I did NOT allow for renewed maneuvers, which meant that they don't have enough.

While I like playing 3.5, I hate DMing it, which was all I've done really. I seem to be the only person in my group with the energy to keep a game going. So after almost 4 straight years of DMing I've seen almost all, if not more than alot of people here, the flaws and power gamer-ness of 3.5. I'm tired of it.

Long live 4th. 3rd was good to play, but 4th will be better to play and DM.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I enjoy 3.x whenever power gamers are absent (or nerfed). Its a fine system as long as noone points out, that spellcasters are overpowered... and delierately exploit the system...
and before too many splatbooks were available...

...I always had the impression spellcasters and non spellcasters were "balanced" not from a powergamers view, but when they act as a group...

I have a level 12 party where spellcasters and non spellcasters contribute to the party and synergize very well... and this is so much fun to play... i wish we would find time to finally end the module...

 

[Gothmog]

3.x started out like the hot new girlfriend every guy wants. She was sleek, sexy, smart and got all the attention. As you started to get to know her, you realized she was complicated- sometimes in good ways, but other times in negative ways- and there was a set of unspoken assumptions that she expected you to adhere to, or there'd be hell to pay later. At first, spending time with her was fun, and you both had a great time- but as time passed she got more and more demanding, finicky, and she just didn't make sense anymore. You also realize she sold herself to you claiming to be one thing, but in reality it was all a facade- she's not the sweet, hot girl next door....but a clingy, needy, high maintainence supermodel. But you're still so smitten with her sexy looks, you figure she's worth the work, and she's the newest and best thing around, right? In fact, you spend so much time convincing yourself of this, you honestly believe it- plus you've blown several grand and lots of time on this girl- giving up an investment and attachment, and moving on is a painful move. But the more time you spent with her, the less satisfied you were...and you started looking around in other places, because you knew something wasn't right. 3.x, being a jealous girl, was less that thrilled with this- after all, she's the EVERYTHING girl (d20 system) because she (the designers) said so! After a painful period of time in limbo, you had to end it with 3.x- she cried and bawled, but she never once admitted she or her assumptions were part of the problem, rather she said that your expectations for her were too high and unrealistic.

That was my experience with 3.x. Cool as hell when it came out, and ran well up until about 8th level. After 8th level (5th level spells basically), forget it- its more of a extreme powers superhero game than a fantasy RPG. Casters outshine every other character type, and fighters, rogues, barbarians, paladins, and rangers become support staff for the wizard, cleric, and druid. From a DMing and playing point of view- that sucks.

As I played it longer, I realized the assumptions about character power level, magic item dependence, the mathematical scale and modeling through levels, and the overcustomization options left me with a game I really didn't enjoy playing. And DMing? That was a nightmare after 8th level or so. Other systems let me play the kind of game I want, without trying to shoehorn in tons of houserules to "fix" the game, AND with a minimum of prep time. Yes, I know people often say you don't have to spend hours and hours to stat out creatures, but thats not the point. When a system requires you to spend that much, using RAW, to do it "by the books", the system is flawed and overly complicated.

So the last time I enjoyed 3.x? A one-night stand about 2 years ago.

 

[cdrcjsn]

3e was fun to play for about 5 years.

It was fun to DM for about 5 minutes.

This.

If I never had to write an adventure then I wouldn't have realized how much of a chore it is to stat out encounters. I would have blissfully played 3e for years satisfied, only avoiding play in the high teens (where it starts to break down for players in that most encounters are either push overs or instant death).

 

[Counterspin]

I last enjoyed 3e when my players were fighting a custom green dragon zombie, their uncle, and the villain from the first episode of my six month Ebberon campaign. They were trying to climb a gigantic undead pyramid while waves of 4e style bone spider minions came crashing down the steps.

I liked 3e because it combined the tactics from board and strategy games with roleplaying. I see 4e as improving the tactics side immensely, and I know my players will continue thier quality roleplay regardless of system, so 4e is win win.