D&D General Why was 3.5 needed?

[haakon1]

I’ve gotten nostalgic for 3.5 and honestly haven’t looked at a 3.5 book since 2009! I loved it for a long time and 3.x was my edition of choice all through its run but got burnt out on the rules bloat and prep time. It was a huge improvement on what came before and I loved 1e and 2e. I have started looking at getting into it again.

I still DM 3.5e. Prep time is a pain, but with Core Book Rules only (plus <10 individually approved rules from the wider game of homebrew, splatbook, and PF1, added because a specific player used them over the decades) it does exactly what we want it to do. It’s the final version of AD&D 1e, with improvements like the d20 higher is better against AC and DC, clearer non-combat skills, removing race v. class restrictions, etc.

 

[amethal]

I still DM 3.5e. Prep time is a pain, but with Core Book Rules only (plus <10 individually approved rules from the wider game of homebrew, splatbook, and PF1, added because a specific player used them over the decades) it does exactly what we want it to do. It’s the final version of AD&D 1e, with improvements like the d20 higher is better against AC and DC, clearer non-combat skills, removing race v. class restrictions, etc.

Do you include swift actions? I can't remember if they were in the 3.5 core rulebook or added in later.

 

[BigZebra]

Do you include swift actions? I can't remember if they were in the 3.5 core rulebook or added in later.

They were added in Miniatures Handbook.

 

[jolt]

A big change for monsters was making everything a square. The confusion that people seemed to have was that a creature that was 2x1 had larger sides than front/back, but since the game had no "facing" rules it didn't seem to make much sense to have a longer flank side that wasn't a flank side or why the dragon was breathing from its flank. I can understand that they probably felt that facing would complicate things, but by not having it you needed to create rules to simulate things like a thief backstabbing when there's no back to stab, or how the 4x4 monster fits in a 1x1 hallway.

 

[Mannahnin]

And it eliminated questions like "how does a 5'x10' space horse pivot its facing when there are people to either side of it?"

But still, making horses and similar-sized creatures go from taking two spaces to four, or tall/big monsters like an ogre or toll go from taking up one 5' square (mostly being extra tall) to four such squares is pretty awkward. And some of that awkwardness is retained today.

 

[SableWyvern]

At the time, I recall people acting like it was needed (I could be wrong, but I recall there was less, "They're only releasing this to make us buy it again," and more, "They should have made more of an effort to get it right in the first place.") I was never all that clear on what the fuss was about; I stuck with regular old 3.0. When I did change, it was for Mongoose d20 Conan and Mongoose d20 Lone Wolf.

 

[Mannahnin]

There were definitely a lot of tweaks and updates and what felt to us largely like quality of life improvements. Un-breaking Haste, for example. I forget what else bothered us about 3.0.

I was a little annoyed that they took away 1st level multiclassing, which was a nice option in 3.0. Kept some of the old feel of O/AD&D multiclassing and helped carry the fiction that the character had already trained in both classes when they started out.

 

[Marc17]

I never really played 3.0. One of the two games I played was just getting back into D&D after leaving for WoD games for a decade. I was impressed with the new rules and said I was going to buy all the books immediately. My friend, the DM, informed me to wait as new books would be coming out in the next month, so I did and really only owned and played 3.5. Even just that one night looking through the books I was seeing some exploits jump out at me that were gone in 3.5. In the other 3.0 game I played, a Savage Species game, they showed back up with things like synchronicity and unclassed bonuses and one character getting a Bluff skill in the +40 range. I also heard about other things such as Haste getting nerfed. I agree with somebody posting up thread that 3.5 had a chance to actually fix the big issues with the game, the character class tier system (or need of one to describe it), but didn't, and with those at the time that said it was confusing as it made somethings simpler while making other things more complicated as to make 3.5 a wash on being any actual upgrade besides a few specific nerfs.

 

[Desdichado]

It wasn't needed. I remember, although now I can't find them easily, that there were some quotes from some of the devs at the time in the comments in the Grognardia blog that confirmed that it was done because Hasbro told them so and nobody believed that it needed to be done yet. That said, I do think that in the end, it was an improvement.

 

[Mannahnin]

I do remember that it wound up being a more substantial update than originally hinted or planned. Tons of tweaks and alterations to spells, for example, as well as to stuff like skills and classes.

It wasn't needed. I remember, although now I can't find them easily, that there were some quotes from some of the devs at the time in the comments in the Grognardia blog that confirmed that it was done because Hasbro told them so and nobody believed that it needed to be done yet. That said, I do think that in the end, it was an improvement.

One of the staffers commented there and linked to extensive pieces he had written on his own blog as well, as I recall. I read through all that stuff a couple of times. Lots of good insights and info, though some of it was a bit inside baseball. Rick something, maybe?