Retro RPG review Part 3: 3rd Edition Dungeons & Dragons

My Dungeons and Dragons retrospective review of the various editions of Dungeons and Dragons continues with the 3rd editions of Dungeons and Dragons! Please check out my other two previous videos in this series discussing the 1st and 2nd editions of the game, and as always, comments either for or against my views are welcome! Thanks for watching!

[@Attilathepun]

My group runs 3/3.5, still our favorite edition. We also put in Pathfinder 1e content from time to time.

[@frankb3347]

My problem with 3rd is you would basically have to plan out everything about your character ahead of time. You couldn't really organically develop your character in random directions as you went. Meaning you'd basically make a 20th level character right from the start and then spend 19 levels waiting to get there.

[@captcorajus]

Yeah, if you were wanting to optimal build your character you're right. I remember playing on servers for Never Winter Nights and there were 'stations' in game where you could relevel your character from scratch so you would optimize you build.

[@stephaniebri5837]

I started with a hybrid of 1st and 2nd edition I was delighted when 3rd edition came along is simplified everything and made me enjoy the game so much more

[@99zxk]

Takes me back to high school when it came out. I started with B/X with father and brothers, did AD&D (didn't care about edition). Then in HS one of the guys I played WEG Star Wars with said "Wouldn't it be cool if there was a fantasy version?" and I was like "It's called Dungeons and Dragons." We still play RPG's two decades later. Come to think of it, a Star Wars RPG being my group's gateway to D&D is unique as D&D is the typical gateway to RPG's. I'd argue that 3e isn't easier to learn than AD&D because of the complexity of feats, skills, synergies, class abilities, monster abilities, etc., despite its D20 mechanics. It was much better written and organized than TSR products, but now we got OSE, OSRIC, etc., that fix this. Sure, OSR games may not use d20's for everything, but I can easily tell a player "You got a 2-in-6 chance to hear noise" instead of "Roll a spot check, adding your Wisdom and class ranks, plus the Alertness fear bonus, your elf bonus, your skill synergy bonus, your class special ability, and the bonus from your magic item versus a opposed skill check by any potentially hidden monsters and a standard DC for environmental noises. Oh, you also get a penalty for every so many feet away you're from the source." Ascending AC is so much better. Also, I wish that 5e kept the 3 Saves instead of doubling them.

[@MySqueezingArm]

I grew up on 3.5. My dad thought 3.5 was the point where D&D went from Sword and Sorcery to High Fantasy. Things were less dangerous, more forgiving, etc. I can see his point, but to me this edition is still what defines D&D to me. I play Pathfinder 2e now, which to me seems like the modern version in spirit.

[@EveryDooDarnDiddlyDay]

I thought 3.0 and especially 3.5 leaned too heavily into making your PCs superheroes. Not my cup of tea.

[@MySqueezingArm]

@@EveryDooDarnDiddlyDay I get you dude. It's why I like playing OSR games as well. Just pointing out that Pathfinder 2E is a pretty good modernized RPG. It's not SotDL or Hyperborea, but it isn't trying to be.

[@XX-sp3tt]

3.5 is when D&D peaked, and I grew up on the 1st edition D&D books.

[@JonThysell]

I started with 2E about two years before 3E dropped, and the amount of (contradictory/optional) material in 2E was so overwhelming that my friends and I basically just lived out of the intro box with (completely unbalanced) cherry-picking from the other books. When 3E and d20 came out it was a breath of fresh air and the quality of our games leveled up considerably. We weren't worried about the MTG-ification of D&D until they announced 3.5 - the idea that WotC could just decide to release a slightly-upgraded point version (and you'd have to re-buy books to keep up and keep getting new material) really turned off a lot of the community I played with.

[@mikewolosz9456]

I wish I could find a group in southeast Wisconsin to play with. Old school D&D was awesome

[@vojtechkubinek6650]

I always liked 3.0, because of the covers on the books.

[@captcorajus]

I liked them a lot myself.

[@vojtechkubinek6650]

@@captcorajus Plus, I don't know if it's only me, but the monster manual reminds me a lot of The monster book of monsters from Harry Potter.

[@Tysto]

These are great videos. I play B, X, 1e, and 2e, and am just now looking into 5e. It's nice to see clearly how the game got to where it is.

[@pspboy7]

Love it or hate it, 3rd was the best thing to happen to D&D, it brought about the OGL and that lead to Pathfinder, Fantasy Craft, and Castles and Crusades.

[@captcorajus]

Absolutely! I couldn't agree more.

[@clerickolter]

Heretic! Feel the wrath of the Old Ones! (smacks with 1st Edition Dungeon Masters Guide)

[@captcorajus]

Ouch!

[@clerickolter]

captcorajus Seriously though it wasn't a bad set save Feats were not optional I so wanted to pull them out of the game but that would leave Fighters at a big drawback. At least it wasn't 4th Edition.

[@captcorajus]

Don't get me wrong. I LOVED 3E, and felt it was a step in the right direction. It did, however, suffer from inflation.

[@johnharrison2086]

3.0 had it's faults but it had a lot of good stuff going for it. In particular the Open Licence opened up the game to a lot of people. I never bothered to get 3.5 as I had all the books for 3.0 . It could be complex if you played in the wrong type of group. I played 3.0 for years, even after 4th Edition was released

[@captcorajus]

I loved 3.0 when it first came out. I didn't really have a 'number crunching' group we were playing with, so we had a blast. I do think it really breaks down when you get the higher levels, and as a DM, very unmanageable, but I have fond memories. The OGL allowed OSR to flourish, so yes, I love that too.

[@thecarterbrothers3315]

loved this review cap, we probably wont move on from 2nd , mainly due to the fact that it took me bloody years to get the hang of 2nd let alone 3rd !, cant speak for my brother of course , his intellect is somewhat greater than mine , as is his height as you can see on the tag lol , be lucky mate , take care

[@imreadydoctor]

From like level 1 to around 7 or 8, 3rd ed. was golden. Much beyond that and the numbers got insane.

[@captcorajus]

Yes, I have to agree with you on that point. Been gearing up for a game of 5e D&D and it looks like they've addressed the number creep very well.

[@Fiendtildawn]

I started back in the 80's with the BECMI, and out of all the editions I have to say this is my go to edition, namely because of Eberron. Which to me is the end all be all of "Flash Gordon" style D+D.

[@MastertheGamerpg]

Really enjoying these videos! You should do a video about your favorite retro clone Castles and Crusades in a few videos. I've never heard of it to be honest.

[@captcorajus]

Thank you so much. I just uploaded a review of the DMG, and in fact I will be reviewing Castles & Crusades next! :)

[@nozzer2002]

i don't think there ever has been a prefect edition of D&D trying to find a chart or rule in the 2nd edition was a nightmare ! don't even get me even started on what was wrong with 4th edition ! :]

[@BanjoSick]

The unification of the resolution methods and the saves were of course taken from Monte Cooks earlier employer Merp/Rolemaster. The feats were awful, though. Loved it when it came out, once the feats piled up I fled back to Rolemaster:)

[@wyrdwik4610]

3e probably saved d and d and the OGL sparked a lot of content and options. I ran plenty of 3e, the crunch bloat was awful. 5e has some issues but i find it much more enjoyable to run

[@Alan13448]

It would seem after watching your reviews. You and i feel very much the same about the different editions, at least very close. I love the basic game, and my favorite edition is 3rd, 3.5, 3.75 lol. I have been dmi'ng the know world / Mystara since 81'.I am running a 3.0 / 3.5 version of the Mystara world that has been on going once a week for over 10 years. The players (8 of them) have 4 to 7 characters each, they are low levels 10ish to upper levels of 33rd. I really enjoyed your videos and have subscribed, look forward to more.

[@captcorajus]

Thank you for the kind words. I certainly will be putting out more... and soon. I enjoy doing the research and revisiting things I haven't looked at in years.

[@VonChokerWOT]

Wow, I know this is from ages ago but I had to comment because your gaming history sounds like an almost exact mirror of mine. The only exception being I moved on to pathfinder in about 2008 which I found made massive improvements to 3.5 although still not perfect. Pathfinder is about to release a 2nd edition and it also looks like it might improve the game going forward

[@worldme8153]

im a dm and i can say 3rd edition its crazy to start dnd at because you dont even know what to do sometimes but yet using a d20 for almost anything is useful im going to get adnd in a week and i hope now that i know more i will go in understanding what im looking for

[@MK-of7qw]

3.5 is very good. Though lately if we use it some of the Pathfinder modifications end up bleeding through... 3.75 😂

[@udasu]

NWN uses 3E, and the engine takes on that feat 'crunchiness'. Never played 3E, just 1&2E with fellow old-schoolers.

[@HollmanOrtizBuitrago]

2021 D&D 5e has done a great job of simplifying the mechanics to appeal to a new generation of players, however there is a tendency to implement things from D&D 3.5 when many of these players gain a bit more experience. However, the good news is that although there are differences in the statistics, these are minimal and D&D 5e, D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder 1e are compatible with each other.

[@Attilathepun]

5e went a little overboard with the simplifying imo

[@yourseatatthetable]

Ah, where to start. I have so many opinions and things that I'd like to address that I know they won't all fit here. To start, the 3rd edition (which I often refer to as 3.5), has been my preferred version of D&D. I own the original box sets and 2nd edition (ADD), and have played and GM'd with 4th (which I felt was some attempt to bridge RPG with card games). The feats do give a wider range of options that personify PC's, and the ability to upgrade or (level up) Monsters and such makes it easier to give them more legs. A few smelly goblins are mere fleas to most mid-level PC's whereas a upgraded Goblin hero comes as a surprise. On that note, one way, as a GM, to ease the need of creating opponents over and over again I've built up a librarya of them. I can dip into the files, grab something suitable and with a few tweaks, toss them at the player's.

[@JohnDoe-yr4wc]

Agree with your assessment of this edition.

[@SwordlordRoy]

"If there's one thing to complain about 3rd edition..." It's the fact Monte Cook Nerfed Martial Classes to the point a Cleric (Priest) or Druid was a better Fighter than the Fighter?

[@gnumann64]

Did you ever make a video about the allignment system? I never really liked it, but would like to hear why i might be wrong :)

[@nozzer2002]

dude..i just liked the THACO rule in the 2nd edition i just couldn't understand why a lot of people said it was too complex,each to their i suppose great video by the way :]

[@KabukiKid]

THACO was a solid system... and remember that it actually is from 1E, originally. ;-)

[@Bad_Moon_Rising]

KabukiKid THAC0 was a system you might suspect was designed by someone with brain damage.

[@clerickolter]

KabukiKid I was in a playtest group for the 2nd Edition they kept most of the rules in because the bread and butter fan of the game the Gamers that played it liked them like THAC0 and Proficiencies and some things were changed or added Bards revised and the Monk toughened up. It was a two year process and the end result nice but I still ran 1st Edition not seeing the point when I had all the books for that and I still run it, its to me the classic system. DnD Next at least I can choose to not use the recovery surge rule at all and add magic item creation feats if I chose to run it.

[@captcorajus]

THAC0 is simply counter intuitive. You must subtract if things are positive, and add when things are negative. For non gamers that can be an issue. Simply using all positive modifiers, taking fewer steps, and having a 'higher is better' system is more intuitive. People like what they like, and there is a group that liked THAC0. Nothing wrong with that, but in the end a game company has to produce a product that has widespread appeal, and will make them money.. so that we gamers get benefit from more stuff!!

[@johnharvath9299]

nozzer2002 you are 100% right,it really isn't that hard. I love 2nd edition.

[@marxmeesterlijk]

Remember two weapon fighting and multi attack. At some point at mid level my attack modifier looked something like +9/+7/+5/+5/+3/+3/+1

[@captcorajus]

yes, I remember that craziness! Its one of the things that disenchanted me with 3E.

[@shallendor]

AD&D actually had 10 saving throws, in 5 sets.

[@thankukorea]

Agreed with everything you said :) I like that D&D still felt like D&D. Unfortunately, for me the feat system is where I lost interest. I played some pathfinder and the energy behind it is awesome, reading the modules is great. All and all I agree with you. I had a coworker ask me about D&D and I recommended Pathfinder too him because its the awesome of D&D still being published but for me. Ive moved to Castles & Crusades because its the old school feel but cleaned up and simple.

[@captcorajus]

Yeah, Pathfinder looks interesting, but a bit too crunchy for me to run... but, I'd totally dig PLAYING a character in it.

[@stratuvarious8547]

1st edition, I have no real experience with, so I can't say much about it, other than it was pretty much the start, yeah you have the White Box which came before, but when everyone thinks about D&D, 1st edition is what really comes to mind. 2nd edition is the first one I played, it was revelatory to me, an entire new type of game. 3rd edition is still my favorite, the one I think of and come back to, whether it's 3.0, 3.5 or Pathfinder 1e. 4th edition was a big misstep. It could have worked as a new game, but it doesn't really function as a RPG without a lot of work. It's too much of a minis wargame and combat takes FOREVER. 5th edition is good, it takes the best parts of 3rd and the few things that worked in 4th and makes something really good. But it still pales to 3rd. 5th edition has too many rules left vague. Like stealth. A hugely important part of a Rogue left without much in the way of clear explanation of how it's supposed to work. Too many things like that hold it back. With codified rules, if you don't like how they function, you can make tweaks, but to leave it to the DM to come up with how something so integral to a class works is a bit much for me. I prefer more crunch to less crunch.

[@RickandPenny]

I loved 3 3.5 and I went to Pathfinder when the edition that shall not be named came out. I can't get into 5th edition. Just can't.

[@redfeildre349]

Something I liked at first but later hated were prestige classes. Every campaign became a race to get a prestige class. Not bad I guess but some of the prestige classes were over powered and even nonsensical. The old days of just leveling up a basic fighter were gone. It was prestige classing or get left in the dust. I'm kind of glad Wizards chose not to bring them back in fifth edition.

[@paulprecour3636]

I grew up with the 'Basic' set; an intro to 1st. Ed. AD&D (the famous 'Blue Box') when I was 12 and then stayed for YEARS, adding kits from 2nd. Ed. (but keeping the modifiers for different weapons from the 1st. Ed. chart) and making up a ton of house rules for our extended Greyhawk Campaign until I was in my late 20s. When WOTC came out with 3rd. Ed. I was hesitant, but then grew to love the 'dark feel' of many of the settings and was thrilled when the Ravenloft setting was expanded as well as the Abyssal Planes (Screw the 'Satanic Panic' of the 70s!). Skipped 4th. Ed. as it just seemed to deviate too far from what D&D was in concept and when WOTC lost their damn minds by needlessly antagonizing and labeling their older fan base as 'racists' and 'homophobic toxix males with 5th.Ed. I just gave up. Been playing Castles and Crusades ever since (RIP Gary, Jim and Dave) and never looked back.

[@valerfor8361]

Good review man, although to properly analyze something as vast as 3.5e it's gonna take a lot more than a few minutes. There were many good changes to the system but in the end, the books were too many for any DM to handle & players were all taken mostly by the idea of "building" their characters to do everything instead of trying to actually role-play them. I still love 3rd Edition & I wish we have been given more time with it rather than what followed by WotC.

[@jeremysmatana2592]

We were given more time with it. We called it Pathfinder.

[@valerfor8361]

@@jeremysmatana2592 Nah wasn' the same really, Pathfinder is an emasculated version of 3.5 D&D where everyone can be happy. At least it has some good adventure paths.

[@JdrD30]

3.0 is my favourite!

[@francoisfortin4693]

Easy to learn, I have a doubt because it is not easy with someone who has never played a role playing game. This is easier than AD & D 2nd , but look at some new RPG that offers even simpler rules. I love learning new RPG as players want to play role-playing games they love.

[@wyckedwyrm5656]

can you use D&D collector series minitures in the rpg of D&D? like the eye tyrant or purple worm?

[@captcorajus]

Of course you can!

[@wyckedwyrm5656]

Thank you

[@Arthineas]

Great review! I like how you mentioned the crunchy factor potentially being a barrier to mew players. I know that Gary Gygax was not a big fan of 3rd edition for this reason. 5th edition in my humble opinion was definitely a huge step in the right direction.

[@SirMillz]

I know you made this review well before 5e, would you still say 3e is the best?

[@sargondp69]

I still think Icewind Dale 2, using 3.0 rules, has one of or the best character creation systems of any D&D video game--with sub-races, some race/class restrictions, and limited feat list. 3.5 went all chart crazy with feats and spells, HP and ability went through the roof, and you can solo dragons on level 15 or so--suicide in previous editions. 3.0 and 3.5 both lose the 'I am an adventurer' feel after a few levels. Characters became too neat and plan-able. This is one reason so many keep trying to remake old RPG rule systems but not succeeding at it. The character should be what he is by level 10 because of the abilities rolled, the adventures, and choices he has made, not the spreadsheet his player wrote when creating him. I want to put a vice/virtue or benefit/penalty system in the game I am working on (sort of like in The Darkest Dungeon video game, but not exactly as it is overdone).

[@sizerlecluck8613]

Also on a side not the DND movie im pretty sure tryed to immtate this ED of dnd (same year

[@captcorajus]

Meh.. I knew the movie was going to suck... edition not withstanding. I saw an interview with the creator and he was bragging about how they were going to have more than 200 dragons on the screen at one time and I was like.. really? You only need ONE dragon.

[@sizerlecluck8613]

@@captcorajus yea.. Courtney Solomon was out of the realm of the real world lol they sighed onto 3 sequels before the movie was even in devolvement. he said that it waset based of any ed of dnd as it would have made peaple made it waset the right interpetashoin so he said forget it ill make up a setting lol But like i said the movie seemed like it was Simi based off 3rd ed the estitics the armor sets the art stlye Im surprised its not on the list ( of 100 of movies so bad their good)

[@bluetablepainting]

I like the new format of recording in an empty gymnasium.

[@captcorajus]

"New"? Apparently you didn't notice this video is 6 years old, and the forth video I ever released, but thanks.

[@EveryDooDarnDiddlyDay]

I thought 3.0 and especially 3.5 leaned too heavily into making your PCs superheroes. Not my cup of tea.

[@LameytheClown]

I want to see this video on alignment. I despise the alignment system, and I'm curious to see a coherent defense of it.

[@captcorajus]

What specifically do you despise about it? I'm curious to hear a coherent reason to dislike it.

[@LameytheClown]

captcorajus Hey now, I didn't claim to be coherent myself, just that I wanted to hear a coherent argument. I don't think I can present such within the confines of the youtube comment section, but I can give you some 'topic headings' at least. I'm going to try breaking this up and hoping the spam filter doesn't eat it. (but past experience indicates otherwise)

[@LameytheClown]

captcorajus The alignment argument: "Your character wouldn't do that because he's chaotic, and chaotic characters are incapable of methodical actions." Now, you can argue that this is a misuse and misinterpretation... but look at the 2e definition of the neutral alignments for example.

[@LameytheClown]

captcorajus Is alignment a matter of philosophical world view, or behavior? It often tries to be both at once to nonsense results. Is a lawful character one that follows a strict code of rules, or one that follows societies rules? What if those rules (the character's or society's) are arbitrary? Is a chaotic character someone who follows his emotions, or someone that is pathological opposed to authority?

[@LameytheClown]

captcorajus I think a lot of my dissonance comes from having a very different world view than Gygax. "Lawful"="orderly"="society"="fair"="just", etc. That is not my experience, or in my opinion, and accurate representation of human existence and society. I don't know what Gygax's political and social views were beyond a few details and what I can glean from his various essays. It's a difficult topic to broach without coming across as incendiary. (KZbin is no place for nuanced political and philosophical discussion)

[@bluelionsage99]

By the way, the open gaming license was actually pointless as rules cannot be copy righted. It was all smoke and mirrors. Only trade marked stuff was off limits like the name Dungeons and Dragons.

[@captcorajus]

Rules can't be copyrighted, but certain mechanical elements of the rules can be. For example the 'tap' mechanic for 'Magic the Gathering' is copyrighted.

[@Longlius]

It's no secret that rules can't be copyrighted. However, the OGL significantly clarified what could be used by third-party publishers for making compatible content and normalized third-party content under a single licensing scheme. This was a massive turnaround from TSR's highly-litigious practices in the 80s and 90s.

[@vesavius]

The D20 mechanic was great, but 3e was the start of the build mindset and the D&D as a skirmish wargame mindset. Yes, you could RP in it, you can in any system, but it was built (accidentally) to appeal to the maths wargame type player over the RP type player. The unpinning design philosophy shifted. I am glad for the D20 OGL though. I play Castles & Crusades these days, as I have pretty given up on D&D as a rules system even now in 5e. I still buy D&D material though, because the adventures and whatever are super easy to use with C&C, butI just haven't enjoyed the core rules since 2e.

[@captcorajus]

I will admit that I have a love-hate-love relationship with 5E, but over time its grown to more of a love with it. I hear 2E people disenfranchised with 5E all that time, and that really puzzles me as there's so much 2E aspects with 5E. Almost immediately 5E reminded me of the 2E kits system, without the need for all those books through 'Archetype' builds. The proficiency system immediately rectifies an issue that D&D has always had, which is going 'off scale' at higher levels. In AD&D you'd have -10 or more ACs, and with 3&4E you could have ACs in the 30s and 40s which I thought was ridiculous. I think the timing mechanics really works well, especially when it comes to spells, and you can totally TOTM it if you want to. Unlike 3E and 4E where a grid was pretty much a requirement. But YES YES.... Castles and Crusades is a phenomenal alternative, and you can totally adapt some things into C&C such as inspiration, Advantage/ Disadvantage, and so on. Thank's for the comment! Game on!

[@vesavius]

@@captcorajus it's not so much about the clunkiness of 2e rules, I agree with you there 100%, it's that the design philosophy shifted away with 3e, then again with 4e, and yet again with 5e. It's really D&D in no more than branding at this time. I am not saying that it isn't a good system for what it does, just that what I think it does is not D&D. You can be a D20 system and be closer to 2e/ BECMI/ etc in philosophy and play than 5e is... Much closer. C&C is just that, in fact (which is the aim of the OSR movement, I guess), though still one that is very 'old school' in it's feel and play. In fact, I feel C&C is what 2e should have been. Thanks for the videos dude, i appreciate the answer on such an old one :)

[@captcorajus]

@@vesavius yes, yes, I agree with you 100% that C&C is what 2E shoulda/ Coulda been.

[@tnndll4294]

I don't play D&D but I happened upon the D&D club room at school. I was there alone looking for a place to eat; and I looked through their stuff and found mostly 5th and 3rd edition stuff.

[@sizerlecluck8613]

3rd edshoin was also the most gritty out of all the ed of dnd the art reflected that. and a lot of peaple liked that and miss it

[@skylord8625]

I loved 3rd. I cut my teeth on it and the law of primacy is well set in my psyche.

[@mxplixic]

I prefer to call "Basic" d&d the 0th Edition. :)

[@raknai]

HOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! I hated so much that they discontinued Dungeons and Dragons and put the advanced in the place. Until today I correct people that this is the third edition of Advanced and all the fans of D&D received a kick in the but. Also the retro games shows how there are a lot of people who love D&d. There are people who aren't rules advocates and liked to play with simpler and malleable rules.

[@clerickolter]

And the old games were Rules Lawyer Unfriendly if they said the DMG says this I can go "I'm not using that rule, I'm running it so its my call." as a defense. If I wanted to do a variant Monk for 1st Edition I could or disallow Speed Factors which was common it was all good. In 3rd Edition say I wanted to toss out Feats, good luck its a core rule they are not optional and most rules were kind of fixed in place.

[@raknai]

clerickolter You are obvious a rule advocate, right? There are more people besides you guys who play RPGs. And are the great majority of the market that was lost. Just because you are the kind who dont Play D&D classic dont mean others dont play. There are much more people for D&D classic than for the 3,5 and stuff. Advanced is not really a second version of D&D, it was another game, with even its own rights. Also most people who used to play the classic dont past from the first red box, they dont need much rules to play.

[@raknai]

Sorry. My tits are very angry.

[@Georgejmh]

Feets or Feats?

[@captcorajus]

Feats. Feet are the things at the end of your legs. :D

[@Georgejmh]

LOL Please realize that I have been a 1st Edition player and DM for many years. Some of the newer rules seem odd to me. Like, why do so many characters now seem to have inherent magic ability?

[@captcorajus]

That's hard to say. What edition are you talking about, and what character class? I like 5E quite a bit at this point.

[@TVlord5]

Yknow I never got the complaint about feature creep and what you call "crunchiness." I play Pathfinder. INFAMOUS four having WAY too many rules...Nothing is stopping you from just saying "We're gonna stick to the core rulebooks." All the additional books don't add rules, they add OPTIONS. If you don't want to spend hours and hours digging through books for all the feats and spells you want...then don't. I LOVE 5e but there's just not enough options for me. It's good, I like a lot of the balance but I have characters I made for pathfinder that I just physically CAN'T recreate in 5e without making up new rules. I appreciate archetypes/prestige classes being built right in and start affecting the game at an early level, but only THREE for every class? Sometimes less...seriously my favorite classes just for the amount of different characters you can make are Cleric (all those domains! Do I want the classic healer? A judge of life and death? A warrior priest who could care less for healing?) and Sorcerer. I LOVE every book I find for Pathfinder with new bloodlines. Where do you get your powers? How do they manifest in you? What powers do they give you? Are you slowly rotting from the taint of undeath? Are you slowly turning into a dragon-man? Hell the character I was talking about before was a wizard/sorcerer multiclass. His sorcerer bloodline was Infernal. His father sold his soul and the souls of all of his descendants for a fortune, so his son (the character) was born with sorcerous powers, destined to be a member of Hell's army. However the son never liked violence so he became a wizard and never learns any damaging spells from his wizard levels and is dedicated to finding away to break the contract. I just CAN'T make that character so effectively. I can get kinda close with a warlock but...it's just not the same. Anyway yeah,

[@captcorajus]

5E is seriously in need of a good splat book, no doubt, but IMHO, Pathfinder from the getgo is difficult to manage. The core issue is players who just want to play something 'fun' and players who have spent hours crunching the numbers, and looked online and have a 'build' they are working on. Build characters tend to dominate most interactions, especially combat as the game progresses. That not even counting what its like when you start reaching 10th level and above. At that point, Pathfinder begin to break down into utter crunch, and that's before you even add a splat book. In my experience, MOST players are not interested in that level to detail. I certainly appreciate 5E's commitment to avoid power creep, but I can agree it wouldn't hurt for them to add in a splat book with new character archetypes and backgrounds for the existing classes.

[@TVlord5]

A fair point...The group I GM does have a group of 4 "just wanna have fun" types and one "build" guy and oh god yes he is so OP compared to everyone else...

[@nozzer2002]

what drove me away from 3.0 was the d20 system i couldn't stand it,2nd edition for me ! :}

[@captcorajus]

See.. when someone says something like this, all I can do is give a puzzled look. Maybe its my OCD, but for me d20 was the best edition of the game.. for the most core reason is that it eliminated conflicting subsystems within the game into one core mechanic. thAC0 was eliminated... and while it was never an issue for me to calculate, but as a DM, explaining it to others over and over became tiresome. No doubt, that once you got out of the core rulebooks, things tended to get too crunchy, but it was certainly a more cohesive system than the previous editions. The non weapon proficiency system was a tacked on disaster, and just drove me crazy... but that's just my personal feelings on it... to each their own.

[@KabukiKid]

captcorajus I never liked the skills in D&D. I still don't play with them.

[@captcorajus]

That's great, but without some sort of customization mechanic, statistically one character is pretty much like the next in D&D. Castles and Crusades doesn't use skills or feats, and they solved this issue elegantly with the 'Siege Engine' system.

[@KabukiKid]

captcorajus I guess that's where the old-school gamer in me kicks in. Then it is all up to the DM... and how the characters role play. We never had skills for years and the game was fine and fun to play. When skills were added, we checked them out and then ended up ditching the idea. Characters are the same only if you play them that way. ;-)

[@captcorajus]

Well, that's partly true... however, if you have an experienced group, and they go up against say... an 8th level fighter, of the 1st edition type... after a few rounds they will be able to figure out his capabilities pretty quickly. But as I've said before, as long as your group is enjoying yourselves and its fun, then who cares? The best edition is the one that's giving you the most enjoyment.

[@manaman6971]

Magic item are better then feats, cause they can be given or taken away.

[@captcorajus]

I agree.

[@deanm375]

The biggest sins of 3E and 3.5E was allowing any race to be any class , the ease of multiclassing., and the birth of min/max characters.

[@TheRealJoeWilde]

Min/maxing existed way before, and was a persistent issue with 2E. The "Player Option" books in 2e were abused all the time.

[@deanm375]

@@TheRealJoeWilde yeah.. and I never allowed player's options in my games. They were a joke.

[@sizerlecluck8613]

Yea but their was a huge seanc freedom that was the selling point of this ed...but 3.5 that blew it wayyyy overbourd

[@deanm375]

@@sizerlecluck8613 I didn't mind the sense of freedom, but when you combined ease of multiclassing, and the bloat of so many feats it became too easy for players to find combinations that broke the game. And the shear amount of classes/feats/racials made it impossible in many cases for a DM to balance encounters. Especially when you had players with different levels of aptitude of understanding the rules.

[@roncorum5877]

With all due respect and no malice. Funny to me how you appear to look at 3rd and 3.5 with rose colored glasses on. "Innovation"? I hated it from the word go in 2000. So many mechanical imbalance issues, bloat( and you complained about Ad&d's glut?) , feat chains, and what had to be revised 3 years after it's release to make it even playable. Then it got usurped by Paizo and the ogl to become Pathfinder during the 4e era. I would say concerning D&D WOTC is 2 and 1. 2 relative failures from 2000 to 2013 (they even split their fanbase in 2008 and caused the edition wars) and one success via 5e which has been termed by many as Ad&d 3e. This (2000's era d20) is not the D&D I knew or appreciated. Nor does it support my preferences in playstyle. The only concept from it I did like was Greyhawk being included as the default setting. Now we have a new edition on the horizon in 2024 under the guise of "One D&D" which is leaning into what already didn't work from over 20 years ago. MHO. Do not misunderstand I am not claiming this is "bad wrong fun" but saying it was no fun for me. What I did appreciate was the early 2010's rerelease of Ad&d which I begged WOTC for during the 5e play test and I still play today. Yes many gamers do not enjoy the Marvel Superheroes flavor in modern gaming. For me that tripe began here.

[@captcorajus]

The edition that's the most fun is the one you enjoy playing. That said, speaking strictly from a mechanics point of view and the rules of game design, it was innovative, and I said exactly why in the video. Getting rid of duplicated systems and subsystems and using one unified mechanic WAS a big improvement in regards to the playability of LOGIC of the game. While you may PERSONALLY not appreciated those changes from game logic standpoint it is an improvements. I'm pretty sure I listed the flaws as well.. how feats got bloated and the number of splat books or did you not play the video long enough to hear my criticisms?

[@roncorum5877]

@@captcorajus I told you several reasons why I disagree with your personal opinion and that's fine that we disagree. Yes I watched your entire video. Happy gaming.

[@johnkirk2863]

3rd edition is too time consuming and it creates exteme rules lawyers and the power leaves the Dms hands very quickly and it adds so many option that i think players worry about what feats and skills they have than their personality and role playing is out the window where there is social skills that can accomplish things by rolling..too much rolling in this system and giving monsters feats is stupid ..how does a rat have a better chance to hurt someone in plate mail than a elven warrior with a bow?? and why would a rat have weapon finesse?? it doesnt use its dexterity to hit ..it runs forward and bites which is strength and there is many situations like this...Also the monster manual was pathetic and what really irratated me was they scattered monsters everywhere in every book..want a Kirin?? get the oriental adventures..want a giant pike?? head over to dragon magazine whatever want demogorgon?? get the book of vile dakrness..want a water wieird?? sorry buddy we changed them I was going to start a 3rd edition campaign but I wanted the creatures from the 3 1st edition monster manuals but it became so frustrating to track all the classic monsters down I switched to 2nd edition instead

[@bluelionsage99]

Little crusty about 3.0 eh Mr. Kirk. :)

[@johnkirk2863]

@@bluelionsage99 LoL yeah I had such a hard time finding the classic monsters =P I do like the rules system though just it can be esily abused and needs some tweaking

[@sizerlecluck8613]

it takes weeks to get to level 10 lol and its ..so basic but complex at the same time like for example their no sub classis really and sub races are far few between making it feel weirdly restrictive and also it seems like they tried to make it feel like lord of the rings...(witch had just came out at the time lol) the removal of gnomes was just dumb lol

[@FPietros]

The best thing to ever happen to D&D is the *5th Edition*.

[@captcorajus]

+FPietros 5E is much better, but it has a few issues... and in an upcoming video I'm going to talk about them.

[@redfeildre349]

+FPietros I love and prefer fifth edition but 3rd did way more for D&D and the hobby in general than any other edition save the original which introduced the world to role playing games. I have groups that still play third and Pathfinder.

[@kilamandaros]

Disagree, 5th is fine for casual play but is lacking the meat in content 3.5 has. The advantage/disadvantage system is also extremely limited.

[@Longlius]

5th edition is a return to more OSR roots, but 3rd edition pioneered rigorous playtesting (which hadn't occurred in previous editions) and unifed the mechanics in a way that hadn't happened before. I like 5e, but comparing its influence to 3e is really short-sighted.

[@retrorami]

I disagree. I don't like 5e as much as I wanted to. It's just not for me. Too bland, too vague, mechanically shallow, few options, ridiculously balanced to a point it doesn't make sense, magic items aren't as special, feats were so poorly designed everyone picks Lucky all the time, standard array has numbers waaaaay higher than they should (with a stat cap of 20)... 3.5 is perfect, it can be broken, yes, but you can also opt not to break the game. There's a lot of optional content, and they can break the game, but they're optional, no DM would allow things stupidly broken just because it's in the book.