D&D Retrospective 7 - D&D 3rd and 3 5 Edition

[@Attilathepun]

My group still runs 3.5e to this day. Definitely my favorite edition.

[@Dram1984]

Agreed. 3e was really exciting when it came out and I still think is a solid system at its core; but over the years the weight and complexity started to bear down on us until we eventually switched back to AD&D.

[@blackbarnz]

The 3.5 collection includes some 3e books. Example- Monster Manual II... I'm a 3.5 fan, it's still my favorite edition. In short, 3.5's strengths are it's weaknesses. It's the "ying - yang" edition, the "How much of a good thing is too much?" RPG. I like the seesaw balance between classes (1st lvl fighter vs 1st lvl wizard =fighter wins compared to 20th lvl fighter vs 20 lvl wizard=wizard wins) it wasn't as dramatic as BECMI or 1e & each character having a specific speciality is good. 3.5 is a distinctive edition amongst others that's difficult to conceptually isolate as a specific individual game for several reasons. The resemblance to older editions, the what's 3e or 3.5 question, 3rd party products, other D20 games, & Pathfinder 1e. The D20 system was flexible, presented rules minutiae, endless variants for each rule, & many alternative rules. It's highly adaptable. It focused on 'realism", detail, & customization. Its capable of accommodating many play styes, themes, & genres. It can even stimulate other editions. The task of deciding what to include, change, exclude, or ignore is more labor intensive for a DM/GM & has greater influence on the game/campaign than any other edition. Unfortunately there's overpowered options & suboptimal options. There's a lot of options & the trick is knowing what to include, change, exclude or ignore. Its work but the payoff is so worth it when it's done right.

[@EmptyKingdoms]

As a youngster, I grew up on 3.5 and I loved it. 4e was never translated in my country, so, yeah. I grew to love it as my favorite system _as a player._ And that is the thing, I think 3.x and Pathfinder for that matter are great games _for the player._ I would dare to say even: _for the player's character._ These games have many _character options,_ but not necessarily many _player's options_ nor freedom. And they are rules-heavy and filled to the brim with details, apparently trying to cover every single possible scenario and situation that would emerge on the table. This kind of stimulated a mentality _against_ trust on the Game Master and rather to trust the rules (or the rulebooks). This is what pulled me to the OSR and retroclones in general---to the point I wrote my own ruleset. Even D&D 5e attempting to be rules-lite is still dang heavy. The Player's Handbook has almost 13 times the amount of pages my ruleset has. I cannot move back to _new school_ systems anymore, they feel too heavy a burden for me (as a GM, 'cuz as a player I still love Pathfinder).

[@Z1gguratVert1go]

"4e was never translated in my country" You live in an enlightened place.

[@paavohirn3728]

Well said. I loved playing in 3.x ed but it killed my DMing which I didn't even realize at the time. I was too much by the book at the time and it meant endless amounts of tinkering with stats. Also skill check DC's were to complex and codified. Then feats and abilities tying characters and monsters down in regards to what's possible.

[@Z1gguratVert1go]

@@paavohirn3728 3E's DMG had pre-generated characters of every major class and every major level. If you needed a "9th level rogue" fast they were right there. I only customize important NPCs or when a prestige class is required (like a troupe of Nightmask Assassins I'm sending after my party soon). Even then I'll carefully design one character sheet, but give the four assassins unique names and appearances. No one can tell they have the same stats (the magic of copy/paste!). Skill check DCs are whatever the DM says they are.

[@paavohirn3728]

@@Z1gguratVert1go Yeah I know. I would certainly have easier time with it nowadays. Still, it's too crunchy for me. I did really enjoy 3-3.5-PF1 back then. It's a great system!

[@JMDornb]

Outstanding video! I stopped playing with 3.5, but I liked both 3 and 3.5. I was not a very experienced DM, but what I liked about 3 and 3.5 was the d20 system. For me, the Difficulty Check system made it easy to figure out if characters could succeed or fail at different things, something I'd always struggled with in 1E and 2E. Never played 4E or 5E. I still have a bunch of 2E things (the Ravenloft boxed sets, modules and various 'guides' which I think would make great reference material if I were to ever play again. I do enjoy keeping up with D&D occasionally, especially now that there are tons of KZbin videos avail, a thing not available many years ago. Keep up the good work!

[@FacelessonaThrone]

The banjo was good, I enjoy your playing and personality; gotta say, those chicken names are fire!

[@VincentsVideoVisions]

I personally think that 3.5 is the best system there is. The depth and breadth of it with all of the splatbooks available is just amazing. 4th sucked and 5th is way too simplified and bare. Even with just first party content there is enough for a lifetime's worth of gaming, and there's also a lot of amazing 3rd party and homebrew. I appreciate earlier versions of the game and I can understand some of the complaints players have against the game after 2nd edition... but I simply dont agree with a lot of those complaints. I also like using bits and pieces of PF.

[@rpgcrawler]

3.x certainly has its place. I enjoyed it immensely when I played it, but I did note a very different 'feel' when I run say, 2e games vs. 3.5. Not just in the rules, but also in the flow of play and player expectations. Not a criticism on my part, just a note. For what it is, it's excellent, and to this day I'll drag it out from time to time to run it. But different game rules will necessarily alter the overall flow of play if different enough, and personal preferences can certainly run one way or another. I personally prefer the way 2e and earlier versions set the tone and flow of play, but I won't turn down playing 3.5, since it is such an excellent system. 4e though? Yeahhh... would have to be a really good reason for me to play that.

[@priestesslucy]

@@rpgcrawler could you elaborate on how the flow of play and player expectations differed between the two editions?

[@comfylain]

Think I've mentioned it around here before, but I'm a bit of a 3.5 fan I think. Granted, my friends and I never paid attention to stuff like distance and time in combat and just threw spells/smashed anything that came along, so we were really focused much more on roleplaying than anything else, which I think 3.5 does really well. I'm getting more into combat and dungeon crawling alongside my interest in the OSR recently, but I think if I want to run/play another really RP heavy game in the future, I'll probably go back to 3.5.

[@rpgcrawler]

I'm sorta of the opinion that an 'rp' focused game can really be played with >any< system, since most of the rp >should< be interaction between people. However, 3.5 is interesting in that it is both an excellent combat system and has broad support for 'rp' focused games in terms of quantified systems for character interaction (skills like diplomacy, sense motive, etc, which can serve as a stand in for when players are playing characters that are more socially focused than they are), as well as the fact that the system kind of unifies npc and pc potential (IE: anything an npc can do, a pc can theoretically make a build to do). So I can totally get where you're coming from on that.

[@comfylain]

@@rpgcrawler Yeah, you illustrated more or less what I meant. It has a quantified system for character interaction. Good way to put it. And I agree that RP can be done on any system, of course.

[@nikolibarastov4487]

One of the ways you can make it more RP heavy is when a Player comes to you and says, "I'm going to take Haste this Level", return to them by saying, "Where do you learn it?", And making spellcasting more like secret societies with contacts and their own personal diaries that they jealously guard with their spells and rituals. In the Case of Clerics, Druids, and Sorceries it's even easier because they are either granted that power by a Patron, or determined by fate of their Bloodline / the Cosmos... Which is in your control as the DM.

[@comfylain]

@@nikolibarastov4487 Yeah! Actually, since posting that comment, I ended up joining a 1st Edition AD&D game with a bunch of older guys. Has been an absolute blast, and has been really fun understanding how they roleplay.

[@nikolibarastov4487]

@@comfylain I find that there are some of the, "Old Ways", that really add Immersion and a Sense of Accomplishment to what's on your Character Sheet, instead of, "I read this obscure book / ruling, and it's insane I want to use it", this comment coming from that very player in 3.5 games 😅 I want to run an OSR game, but I will die on the Hill that THAC0 is not a helpful way to resolve Combat, which I found Basic Fantasy sidesteps THAC0 in lieu of an Ascending AC system. But that's my podium time done, I very much appreciate your response!

[@midnightgreen8319]

3.5 is my favorite version.

[@rpgcrawler]

It's definitely a solid version, although I find myself wanting to only run it with the core three books when I look at it lately. While I loved the add ons that accrued over the years, it does add a bit of complexity to the system over time (and power creep).

[@midnightgreen8319]

@@rpgcrawler It got completely bloated, for sure. The core system is super fun though, definitely more high powered than the older versions, but very fun.

[@GoldenChed]

😂 Yes! 4th edition here we come!!!

[@paavohirn3728]

D20 system, skills, ascending AC etc. So many things that made so much sense to me after BECMI and 2nd ed. I was in awe. And we had a lot of fun in 3.x ed. But it turned out to be so heavy it killed a lot of creativity.

[@rpgcrawler]

I hear you there. 3.x was a great series of systems, but started the whole 'looking at actions and options within a menu' rather than the 'come up with your own thing and ask the dm if it works' sort of gaming for a decent number of people.

[@paavohirn3728]

@@rpgcrawler Yup. And I mean one of the great things is the clarified action economy but when the system micro manages each possible action, then it goes too far for me.

[@tytonshade]

11:20 this solution, players should be given ample options to deal with a threat. If anyone wants to just throw strength vs con any video game since 1990 will do.

[@arphod]

The main problem with 3.5 is DMs who let their players use anything from any book. Umm, no. My current table rules are: 1. Every player can use the PH and one Complete book, or Book of 9 Swords if preferred 2. No prestige classes, for players or NPCs 3. No shopping for magic items, in stores or in books That right there solves soooo many problems.

[@SprocketWalker]

I love that intro music! It sounds like the music from the British Sherlock series.

[@Arcboltkonrad13]

3rd/3.5 are okay-ish. 4e, though, is my personal favorite D&D. But hey, to each their own, right?

[@rpgcrawler]

Indeed, if everyone liked the same thing, there wouldn't be a need for multiple games! And that would suck. I personally dislike 4e, but as a game system, I do recognize its good points, and will cover them when I get that episode out. I'll treat it fairly as I always try to do.

[@EveryDooDarnDiddlyDay]

4e is for console kiddies

[@priestesslucy]

@@EveryDooDarnDiddlyDay I mean, I grew up playing on consoles in the early 90s and 3rd is my flavor of choice 🤷 Not really a fan of 2nd or 4th but if I were choosing between them as as a GM I'd definitely take a 2E Retro Clone over 4 lol. As a player is a more difficult choice unless I know the GM personally... Old school can really crush my roleplaying spirit when characters are dying too frequently

[@EveryDooDarnDiddlyDay]

@@priestesslucy Everyone i welcome to their own flavor, but 4th edition introduced "mechanics" that were basically ripped right out of video games and have little to nothing to do with tabletop gaming. "We blew our dailies" Yeah, I've something you can blow, right here.

[@priestesslucy]

@@EveryDooDarnDiddlyDay I suppose in some older editions Spells technically aren't Daily Abilities because it takes more than a day to prepare them all if you get to a high enough level. Honestly I'm a little conflicted on the subject. I get where the designers are coming from, wanting to give the other classes equally powerful shit on the same resource recovery mechanic... But it's even more interesting to me when the classes have different strengths. Maybe the full casters are significantly more powerful with their top level of spells, but if the martials are so over the top badass amazing that they're equivalent to second to highest level spells All The Time, that's a very cool dynamic. One I don't think D&D ever actually designed, because they're afraid of making Always On too good.

[@paulthewhite]

Can't wait for the 4th edition review :D

[@theredfriar8938]

i think everybody is going to have their favourite rules system for me its about the character and the story your telling with that character looking forward to 4th ed retrospective as i never played it stopped at 3.5 yeah enjoyed .....

[@billyscenic5610]

Great history lesson. Ironically 3rd edition was worse than 2nd when running as a video game ruleset

[@priestesslucy]

30:38 I would argue that's the point of leveling up. If I wanted to GM a game where characters never became something beyond human I wouldn't use a level based system.

[@TheLoyalOfficer]

Very thorough. I always wondered about the difference between 3 and 3.5. I went back to 2nd, myself.

[@rpgcrawler]

Thanks! And as for myself, lately I've been kind of bouncing between 2nd and 5th. I really enjoy older editions more, but it can be a pain to get some people to play them. So far I've only really found one group that will reliably play 2nd, so I take what I can get, heh.

[@TheLoyalOfficer]

@@rpgcrawler I really didn't like CONSTANTLY having to look up Feats, especially as a DM. It added to prep, since I had to dig them up from even the most basic monsters. Then all of the supplements added even more! I also did not like the DC system either. It was not clear to me and seemed to be aimed for very high level characters. It seemed like every DC I saw was 30 or more! Just weird.

[@rpgcrawler]

Yeah, I totally get that, it made playing it take for EVER too. Then it got a bit worse in 4e. 5e scaled it back a bit, but it's still pretty 'class ability' intensive now. When I was doing 3.x and pathfinder I could maybe do one or two decent encounters a night. I can maybe get 2 or 3 encounters/fights into a 5e session night unless they're super simple. Whereas my 2e group can blow through 4 or 5 easily in the same time. And I spend about the same amount of prep time on each game, so that just shows that it scales on the DM's side to prepare things in the same way.

[@TheLoyalOfficer]

@@rpgcrawler At the end of the day, I guess I just felt that 3rd edition broke more than it fixed. I also found the prestige classes annoying - they made you want to just start with them, rather than making it a distant goal. I also felt that the low-level material was lacking - although I have the SAME complaint, with AD&D and 2nd Ed. as well. The modules were lacking and they also did not have those handy "read this to the players" boxes. I also was not a big fan of what they did to Greyhawk. Too many "eldritch fields" and "swirling magical forces" which made it look more and more like Warhammer from Games Workshop with everything coming through some Chaos gate. Ugh. What was the main difference between 3 and 3.5? What did the "point-five" bring to the table?

[@rpgcrawler]

Some skill revisions (A few skills eliminated or combined), some spell balance revisions (Changes to individual spells, some spells moved to new schools), a few changes in core monster abilities (Damage reduction, for instance, changed from something like DR 5/+1 or 5/+3 to just 5/magic, simplifying things overall), basically a bunch of minor changes that shifted the balance a bit, but didn't make them incompatible.

[@johnfal1849]

Can you play 3.5 comfortably without miniatures and a grid?

[@rpgcrawler]

I personally have, although I will admit that it works only for certain types of adventure. It's easier to play without a map and minis than say, 4e, but some combat mechanics and spells presume and rely on a grid. For smaller, less complex combats you can get away without one, while for combats of any complexity, or with particular types of character, a grid or some sort of mechanism of keeping track of exact placement will be vital.

[@BlackJar72]

To me, this was the edition where D&D stopped being D&D -- a game is defined by its rules, which can be tweaked and honed or have variants, but completely replace the rules and you have a different game. It's like when Gurps had its own version of another game but the game was Gurps; this game is D20 System, with a conversion of D&D to D20 System. It looks to me newer (post 2e) versions borrowed from Gurps and especially Torg -- heavy focus on skills instead over classes, fumbles (Torg's mishaps), multi-action rules, and various other things. Considering how different those games were it's like a new version of chess borrowing heavily from backgammon, but in many ways that seem like what has happened. Technically, I can't say too much and I may be somewhat off, as I never got into 3e or 4e, but looking from the outside that's what it looks like going all the way into 5e. I'm not saying its a problem with new editions or I won't play them, just that they seem like new games with a shared branding.

[@priestesslucy]

Can you explain what a 'focus on skills over classes' means?

[@ryanlynn]

Loved 3.5

[@Z1gguratVert1go]

Not to be "that guy" but prestige classes were not new in 3.0, back in the old D&D boxed sets there were paladins and avengers (which would become blackguards) and the bard was a prestige class in AD&D 1E I believe. Now, they didn't call them "prestige classes" back then but that's what they were. Great presentation overall. I love 3.0/3.5 to bits, I think it's the height of the game and that it has only gone downhill from there.

[@carda1972]

Loved 3 and 3.5 in NWN/NWN2, I think Icewind Dale 2 also took this ruleset, no?

[@rpgcrawler]

Yeah, they took versions of it, although altered. And that's one of the strengths of the 3rd edition ruleset, was that you could change it relatively easily. The truest representations of it in video games however were in Temple of Elemental Evil and Dungeons and Dragons Tactics (for the PSP).

[@carda1972]

ToEE brings back awesome memories. I asked beamdog to remaster that game but they never replied. Quite a shame

[@TKFKU]

I grew up BECMI and 2e, 3.5 was all well and good simply because it gave the game new life however as was noted here became "heavy". Never bothered with 4 or 5e simply due to 3e's having me tired of buying books none of which statisfied the urge left empty by it's lack of mass combat or good high level play. 3e is when it started feeling more like a video game chasing feat trees. I see Ebberon being the only good thing to come out of the edition and unless playing that would rather stick to BECMI.

[@rpgcrawler]

I definitely get you across the board on those sentiments. As of late, even though I played 5e for a while, I find myself going back more and more to the 2e and becmi (and compatible osr) rulesets, it just ends up being faster to run and adapt on the fly.

[@LegionofMyth]

Preserve the basic feel of D&D? Not even close. As just one example, any race/any class is not in the spirit of D&D. 3.0 and beyond (3.5, 4 and 5) are not bad GENERIC game systems, hence the popularity; however, they completely lost the spirit of Gygax and AD&D. Great for money, in a business sense, but did not honor the spirit, the IP, or the traditions that came before it.

[@erezamir7218]

Race and class are seperate in AD&D too

[@LegionofMyth]

@@erezamir7218 Separate, yes, but not any race/any class. Gnomes cannot be paladins, demi-humans have level limitations, etc.

[@priestesslucy]

Can you elaborate on why you think that specific point (Pigeonholing races to certain classes) is a good thing of classic d&d? There's some really good stuff in older editions but I don't understand the appeal of that at all. Maybe as Greyhawk specific restrictions I wouldn't mind it, part of the culture rather than a game rule.

[@Liethen]

@@LegionofMyth Everyone I know ignored race/class restrictions, just gave humans 20% more xp as a trait