D&D 3E/3.5 Why 3.5 Worked

[Helldritch]

If they were buffing that much, they were wasting resources better spent on just ending a fight in a few rounds.

Maybe the 5MWD syndrome was at that table. A few debuffs like these were all that was needed to end the 5MWD. (and random encounters while they were sleeping).

 

[Helldritch]

Just like I responded to @Fanaelialae, there were much better feats that made it so that you didn't need to go to a back-up group. For the entire run of 3e, 3.5, 4e and 5e(My various groups played 3.5 that long) until about a year ago, I only saw leadership taken as an RP feat, and then only once or twice.

Really? In most of my games (Pre 5ed that is) Charisma and leadership have always been seen as good things to have. Not vital ones, but if you had them, so much the better. This feat was almost in all groups (with a few exceptions) and even today, some of my oldest players mourn for that feat. It was leading to a lot of Role Play and it was a good back up plan in case something went wrong. Now, charisma is just a stat for spells and a bit of interaction with NPCs...

My games have a high attrition rate if you are careless. TPK happens not that often, but I don't hesitate to TPK if the group is careless. So far, since 5e started, only 8 parties made it past level 12 and only three of those went higher than 15th. Of these 3, one party made it to level 20. Except for the three last ones. Almost all groups ended by a TPK. A few group recovered from TPK with a wise use of Role Play that made it possible. About 20% of the groups that ended without a TPK did so because it was the end of the story. With that in mind, it's good to have a good backup plan just in case. The higher your level is, the better the backup plan can be.

We usually play long sessions (about 6 hours) once per week per group (I have two) with one weekend session per month that is about 12 to 14 hours (this replaces the normal session, which is always on a week's day). I work a lot, so I don't have time for more and we all have different schedules so we sometimes skip the weekend session.

 

[Anoth]

Maybe the 5MWD syndrome was at that table. A few debuffs like these were all that was needed to end the 5MWD. (and random encounters while they were sleeping).

i always designed adventures so that the longer they took the more the enemy could prepare or move the mcguffin. And if the enemy became aware they would become the hunted. So I never really had the 5MWD problem. And several DM’s in my area taught me the same trick in the 80s. The chance of random encounter increased as more parties were searching for them. Now a new player would probalygo through a dozen characters until the learned to conserve their spells and not waste a slot. If they would go all Nova at the wrong time it would probaly mean their death. and so forth.

 

[Helldritch]

Scrolls & potions at 7th, too. But crafting rules left the DM a lot of room to screw with you. Nothing like 3e.

Mixt of editions. Checked 1ed PhB and Magic User could do anything from level 11...

Maybe they were in modules, but the treasure tables, not so much. You'd get more items, but they were always weighted towards potions, armor/weapons, and the like. Rod/Staff/Wand actually kind rare.

For the low level mage yes. For the high level one, he/she could build what he was missing (if the resources were available, which was not that hard to get.) It was not as extreme as in 3ed but it was there.

….yeah, see, this is making me miss 1e.... I feel the beginnings of a bout of paleo-gaming coming on...

Damn... me too

 

[Helldritch]

i always designed adventures so that the longer they took the more the enemy could prepare or move the mcguffin. And if the enemy became aware they would become the hunted. So I never really had the 5MWD problem. And several DM’s in my area taught me the same trick in the 80s. The chance of random encounter increased as more parties were searching for them. Now a new player would probalygo through a dozen characters until the learned to conserve their spells and not waste a slot. If they would go all Nova at the wrong time it would probaly mean their death. and so forth.

So I am not alone!

I trained a lot of young DMs back in the days, and sometimes nowadays too. The first thing I tell them is: "If the role were reversed, that the players were being attacked by monsters that were retreating to a safe place, what would they do?"

Every single time, I get: "They would hunt these monsters without delay". Then so should the monsters if they can organize themselves. Once a young GM understands that, the 5MWD is over. Groups try to do maximum damage in one day/foray. Novas go down the drain and it becomes easier to plan for a good balance of encounters.

 

[Catolias]

I feel the beginnings of a bout of paleo-gaming coming on...

Paleo-gaming? Does that mean activated almonds, beef jerky and low carb beer rather than potato chips, chocolate and wheat beer?

 

[Fanaelialae]

If they were buffing that much, they were wasting resources better spent on just ending a fight in a few rounds.

That's going to be very situational. There were plenty of longer lasting buffs which could last multiple encounters. Buffs could certainly be the more efficient option in terms of total resources. Fireball will work, at best, for 1 encounter (and even then, likely won't end that encounter). But a buff can last multiple encounters, and some of them are quite potent.

I'm reminded of the time my monk was eaten by a roper. It was just myself and the cleric. He withdrew from the fight, cast all of his buffs on himself, and then solo'd that roper without breaking a sweat. Then got me rezzed (he wasn't high enough level to do it himself).

Certainly, debuff could change that equation, but so could any DM counters. Let's say that the party mage loves throwing fireballs. The DM could just design every encounter where there is a counter for fireball (such as a mage who readies an action to counter spell it). It's not functionally different from spamming debuffs in every encounter. In both cases you're specifically designing encounters to counter the PC caster.

No need of spread sheet for that. Base character sheet. Then a sheet to show all buffs common to all players. And a last one for personal buffs. (all were on plastified sheets which were easily erasable). It was only taking a few seconds to do.

A good approach, bit effectively the same difference.

If the player wasn't using some method for carefully tracking all of their bonuses, then debuffing could be a nightmare that slowed the game to a crawl. I know because early on no one thought to use such a method. Thankfully buffs and debuffs were used with moderation at my table most of the time, but when it happened it slowed things to a crawl.

 

[Maxperson]

That's going to be very situational. There were plenty of longer lasting buffs which could last multiple encounters. Buffs could certainly be the more efficient option in terms of total resources. Fireball will work, at best, for 1 encounter (and even then, likely won't end that encounter). But a buff can last multiple encounters, and some of them are quite potent.

I'm reminded of the time my monk was eaten by a roper. It was just myself and the cleric. He withdrew from the fight, cast all of his buffs on himself, and then solo'd that roper without breaking a sweat. Then got me rezzed (he wasn't high enough level to do it himself).

Certainly, debuff could change that equation, but so could any DM counters. Let's say that the party mage loves throwing fireballs. The DM could just design every encounter where there is a counter for fireball (such as a mage who readies an action to counter spell it). It's not functionally different from spamming debuffs in every encounter. In both cases you're specifically designing encounters to counter the PC caster.

Fireball was a bit better than buffs, but damage was also generally inferior. There were generally much better options available.

The thing about buffs lasting more than one encounter was that the vast majority of them didn't. They mostly lasted rounds or at best minutes, meaning that at 10th level you had 1 minute or 10 minutes that they would last, and you weren't often in that many combats in that short of a period of time.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Fireball was a bit better than buffs, but damage was also generally inferior. There were generally much better options available.

The thing about buffs lasting more than one encounter was that the vast majority of them didn't. They mostly lasted rounds or at best minutes, meaning that at 10th level you had 1 minute or 10 minutes that they would last, and you weren't often in that many combats in that short of a period of time.

Sure, fireball was just an example. A DM could counter literally any spell if the encounter was designed to do so.

I admit I'm rather rusty in my knowledge, as I haven't played in at least a decade. But weren't durations significantly longer (generally) in 3.0? And wasn't there a metamagic that extended a non-instantaneous spell's duration, and another that increased it to 24 hours?

Regarding debuffs, you could probably make it harder on the DM by simply having a Contingency cast to counter the first debuff that was cast on you (obviously, it would need to be phrased better than that, I'm just suggesting the idea).

 

[Maxperson]

Sure, fireball was just an example. A DM could counter literally any spell if the encounter was designed to do so.

You keep bringing up corner cases, countering specific spells, as if that somehow shows that buffing which is generally a worse option somehow becomes good. Casting lots of buffs just makes things harder on the party, and I'm not talking about math for the players.

I admit I'm rather rusty in my knowledge, as I haven't played in at least a decade. But weren't durations significantly longer (generally) in 3.0? And wasn't there a metamagic that extended a non-instantaneous spell's duration, and another that increased it to 24 hours?

In 3.0 the +4 to stat buffs where an hour per level, but that dropped to 1 minute per level in 3.5. The metamagic feat had such a big level hit that it just wasn't worthwhile until fairly high level.

Regarding debuffs, you could probably make it harder on the DM by simply having a Contingency cast to counter the first debuff that was cast on you (obviously, it would need to be phrased better than that, I'm just suggesting the idea).

You'd have to know which one was being used. Dispel, greater dispel or disjunction. And there were better uses for contingency, like getting your rear out of there if you were killed or about to be killed.