Why D&D 3.0 Is Actually Good

I'm a fan of Dungeons & Dragons 3.0, but not everyone is! In this video I explain why I think it's actually a great edition of D&D and why it deserves a chance.

[@Magicwillnz]

Anyone who was around during the transition of 2e and 3e knows 3e was a good edition, with a lot of really great ideas but designer lacked theory about game balance. The issues with 3e became more obvious with age, partly because I noticed a change in gaming culture between 2000 and 2008, where things transitioned from a "naive" style of gaming to an "optimized" style when people were actively play as efficiently as possible and use builds that exploited loopholes in the rules, an attitude way less prevalent in the 90s when randomness was king. If you play 3e naively, it's a great system.

[@Lo-Fi_Gaming_]

That’s a point I didn’t really touch on, which I agree with. I always played with friends and it was always about good times and a laugh rather than optimising, so for us it was a blast. I can imagine if you were in a game store experience with a min/maxer or had someone in your group who loved optimising it could get boring

[@WallySketch]

You are absolutely right about the change in gaming culture. Between 2000 and 2005 came the MMO video game genre and it democratized power gaming and general competitivity in a cooperative environment. At the same time a lot of TTRPG players went to MMOs and new TTRPG players came from MMOs. WotC saw MMOs as a big competitor for D&D, and this is why 4e plays like a MMO. Which a lot of people disliked.

[@Magicwillnz]

@@WallySketch That's a really good point. MMOs were the source of a lot of negative influence on ttrpgs. We had power gamers in the 90s but it was considered bad form and unsporting. I think that there was a subconscious acknowledgement that the rules were breakable as written, it was less about the rules and more about the experience. Today the experience takes a back seat to rules... if you wrote rules that are easily broken it's the designer's fault and not the players for ruining their own experience. It's why a lot of teeth were taken out of monsters and spells. A really good example of this was the Amber Temple in the Curse of Strahd module, all the evil entities you could make a deal with gave merely disappointing temporary buffs at horrid costs, "balanced" but unsatisfying.

[@McHobotheBobo]

​@Lo-fi_Gaming_ The only min-maxer I know loves 3.5 for it's immense variety of optimizable factors

[@pst5345]

I am leading a 3.5 game atm. and it is the grwatest experience ever. I provide the pool of choices the characters can make and the very new players discover things they can do and are happy little beavers by just playing casually. Never been easier being the DM. 3.5 more than other rules mechanics allow to adapt the system to your story which is my recommended way of playing.

[@themollyjay7974]

Anyone who bags on 3e wasn't there and doesn't understand how big a freaking deal 3e was at the time. DnD was dead when 3e dropped, and within a couple of years, EVERYTHING was based on 3e mechanics. The D20 brand was everywhere, and knocked White Wolf's Storyteller system off the throne it had been on since Vampire the Masquerade dropped back in 91. 3e breathed new life not only into DnD, but into the ttrpg hobby as a whole. It was honestly the biggest boost to the hobby until Critical Role came along.

[@hypercube8735]

Speaking of the d20 system's absolute dominance over White Wolf at the time: I remember when it got its *own* d20 system variant with Monte Cook's World of Darkness. That was a wild time.

[@themollyjay7974]

@@hypercube8735 Oh, God, I had completely forgotten about that, but it was a whole trend. D20 versions of other games that had their own system.

[@willchurch8376]

@@hypercube8735 Monte Cook's World of Darkness was wildly different from the actual World of Darkness, but White Wolf was involved in d20 long before that came out. One of the first (and still best) third party supplements for 3e was Relics and Rituals, which along with the Creature Collection, kicked off the Scarred Lands campaign setting.

[@theravenone3439]

Still playing 3.5 to this day. We like it a lot better than 4th and 5th in a lot of ways. Too crunchy for a lot of tables, but we like the power curve. Vast seas of content. Way more room for rules backed character ideas.

[@markmurex6559]

3.5 is my favorite. I was too angry that 3.5 came out right after 3.0, but eventually I realized that 3.5 was better in ways.

[@LeeBoonesYouTube]

That’s precisely how Harm worked in AD&D though. Since 3e came out there’s been an ever growing fixation with game balance that a lot of us old schoolers don’t get.

[@Lo-Fi_Gaming_]

Both have a place I think - different flavours. I appreciate the old school way too. Check out my OD&D white box vid. 0e is my favourite edition

[@fadeleaf845]

I have a strong feeling that balance is valuable - but more in a very lenient sense that each class should be able to provide a valuable niche in a group that you would want to play it, but also have proper limitations to make other classes appealing. To me, a class should be relatively self-contained that you can cover most basic competences in a single character but won't excel at certain things like other classes could. Party coherence and cooperation wasn't as pronounced in the older editions (largely because they were primarily emulating media that mostly features solitary heroes). Class imbalance can be a problem not just for party cohesion, but also giving headaches to module writers who have to either contend with spellcasters walking over their module with ease or martials being unable to participate at all.

[@tinyhowie]

Take Disintegrate as an example. Same level 6 spell requiring attack rolls, with a save, make it or turned to ash out right. The major issue is the normalizing of class features and experience table. By the time these spellcasters were able to one shot monsters, the other martial classes are still struggling.

[@matthewparker9276]

Player options should be balanced against each other, else they cease to be options.

[@Sanguivore]

@@matthewparker9276If you’re focused only on mechanical abilities and numbers, sure. If you’re focused more on flavor and character, those things cease to matter. Me and my brother play a 0E/OD&D campaign, he plays a Magic-User and I play a Fighter. When he casts something like Sleep, Charm Person, or Fireball and changes the entire outcome of the situation, I don’t go “Damn, that’s unfair! I should’ve rolled a Magic-User, or I should be given powers like that,” I think “Damn, that’s cool! That ability really came in clutch, and I’m stoked that he can do that.” When I wade through a sea of 4HD or lower creatures with multi-attacks and better AC/HP, he doesn’t get upset that I can do that, he’s like “It’s a good thing we have a higher-level Fighter on our team!” An overemphasis on balance creates homogeny, which *truly* eliminates choice. If all Magic-Users are the same (mechanically/numerically) as all Martial classes, that’s the *illusion* of choice. It’s the same options, just dressed up in slightly different shades of paint. Diversity of play experiences makes the game way more varied and fun for everyone, and everyone can find a role they really enjoy.

[@johnharrison2086]

3.0 is great. I didn't upgrade to 3.5 instead playing 3.0 for many years.

[@muddlewait8844]

As someone who’s played since Moldvay Basic/Expert, I think 3rd is the *most* D&D that D&D has ever been, and the ultimate expression of the D&D that started with AD&D. It preserves all the problems with D&D that had long defined it (overpowered casters especially at higher levels, hit points, unbounded accuracy/saves), but also solved a lot of deficiencies (skills, made rogues matter, feats, opportunity attacks) and best of all IMO answered a ton of system questions and filled in gaps that had long gone without a single consistent official answer (supernatural vs. spell-like vs. exceptional vs divine abilities, excellent magical item crafting rules, definitions of what ability scores actually meant, magic item “slots” for a character, modifier stacking rules, how mind-affecting effects worked, clear antimagic rules, rules for miniatures, vehicle combat, overland travel, tightly defined but numerous creature types, and just tons more). It was, frankly, way too much, but it answered pretty much every significant question D&D had ever introduced to that point, even if some of the answers (like how Polymorph worked) were bad. It represented a place we could all back away from and simplify into 4e and 5e while those who wanted to could follow the route of complexity it had established into Pathfinder.

[@willydstyle]

Everyone I knew *loved* 3.0 compared to AD&D 2e when it came out. It just gave the game a lot more consistent mechanical framework, and honestly was an evolution that aligned with how a lot of people were playing the game. I know that "rulings over rules" is back in vogue with the popularity of OSR, but everyone I knew houseruled the shit out of 2e in an attempt to remove a lot of ambiguity and DM fiat, and 3e was written as an answer to that trend.

[@whoobibi]

I played D&D 3e and 3.5 as part of the Living Greyhawk RPGA campaign and also as part of a long-running home game, and let me tell you, it was a TON of fun. It felt like old-fashioned war-gamey AD&D but with cleaner more sensible rules. It was unbalanced because the AD&D that preceded it was unbalanced. "Balance" was only an issue for tournament play anyway. For home campaigns, DMs could rule on any problems. For balance, one couldn't beat 4e, but it wasn't really D&D anymore. The things that made 3e so wild as levels rose were what made AD&D what it was since 1978. It was designed around fun and friends playing around a table, not computer games or "balance". For those who didn't play those original editions, 3e was the last time it really felt like AD&D. 4e didn't. 5e doesn't. They aren't the same games now. Just the same names.

[@Lo-Fi_Gaming_]

Nice

[@infernoeagles5812]

This is best explanation of why I hate 5th edition so much everyone is trying to play this like a video game. I’m a person who doesn’t give a rat ass about players becoming to “powerful” Also if you think it’s too hard on the DM you need to spend some more time as a player and rule 1 of dnd if you can do it I can do it also 😂

[@Bondanalloy]

I had played 2e for a few weeks and didn’t really get the rules as a kid. When 3e came out I got the phb and read it cover to cover and learned and memorized. Same when the other two books came out. I love 3.0 I will always have that nostalgia for it

[@josiahhopkins9188]

3.5 is the edition I started with back in the heady days of 2005 and it will always occupy a place in my heart (and on my bookshelf) [and at my table]

[@rudesthazard5769]

Most of 5e's success is probably the DNA it shares with 3.0 and 3.5 The reasons I drifted away from 5e is because it feels souless in comparison. It feels kind of unfinished. As if they just keep printing Xanathar's over and over with a different Forgotten Realms character on the cover instead of fleshing out the modularity of their original design goals.

[@infernoeagles5812]

Ohh you have discovered that the 5th edition of dnd was unfinished lol it’s horrible unfinished it has so many issues that I refuse to play 5th edition anymore because of the bullshit it causes at tables there are no rules for anything and it causes so many issues because rules are just changing constantly there is no grounds for anything and then there’s a asshole that is always screaming rules as written says I can do this… and me just wanting to use a bag of rats to kill his character because rules as written says I can.

[@antieverything1]

sounds like a problem with your skill as a GM, frankly. @@infernoeagles5812

[@josephpilkus1127]

It certainly hasn't received the hate of the much-maligned 4th Edition. I have played 3.5 since 2004 and have absolutely love it. It is exceptionally crunchy and my players appreciate the level of specialization simply not found in 5th Ed. I'll play and run a 5th Ed. adventure, especially for new folks, but as a 40-year player and DM I'll stick to 3.5 for the more serious players.

[@hypercube8735]

3.5e was my first edition, and it was a perfectly good edition (spent $150 of birthday money to buy the brand new box set 3 core rulebooks back in 2003). During the 3.x era, with the original OGL, the d20 system was everywhere. There was Star Wars that played like D&D. There was Call of Cthulhu that played like D&D. There was World of Darkness that played like D&D. They even made official RPGs of other IPs like Stargate SG-1 that also played like D&D (well, that one played like d20 Modern). It wasn't until 5e's absolute explosion in popularity that I've ever seen anything like the early-mid-2000s' "just run everything using D&D" boom. I myself didn't even discover that there *were* non d20 system RPGs until around 2007 (when I stumbled across someone running Vampire: the Requiem at a convention, and found out that Monte Cook's World of Darkness wasn't the real thing). This omnipresence of third edition D&D had its downsides, though: by 2008 we were all sick to death of the unintentional balance problems in the game (the class tier system that developed due to lack of playtesting of things like wizards who did things other than cast raw HP damage spells, and not realizing that "just give them a bunch of bonus feats" was not a substitute for giving Fighters actual class features the way giving wizards access to spellcasting meant they basically didn't need other class features), and there were reasons E6 and E8 (starting "Epic" character progression at level 6 or level 8, before the balance between martials and casters really started to fall apart). Toward the end of 3.5e's lifespan we were hoping 4e would be a streamlined, tightened-up version of 2e, the way 3.0 evolved out of things like Skills & Powers from 2e. 4e focused really hard on fixing the class balance complaints, but kind of went overboard (every class using the same mix of at-will, encounter, and daily powers; non-combat utility powers being rare and basically an afterthought; classes that *didn't* use the at-will/encounter/daily power system like the psion being really wonky). Non-combat in general in 4e felt like basically an afterthought. You don't need rules for pure-talking roleplay, but it felt like they forgot about the exploration/adventuring/dungeoneering aspect of the game (especially with how prominent utility casters were in 3.5e), and the focus on pure combat balance at the expense of everything else felt like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I maintain that if 4e was pitched as a successor to the D&D Tactical Miniatures Battle Game that was also popular during that time it would have been much better received, but pitching it as the successor edition to D&D (also maligning their own previous edition and popular video games like World of Warcraft in their marketing for 4e) resulted in an intense backlash due to how different this "replacement" was, which resulted in the creation of games like Pathfinder, which was outright selling better than 4e for a while. I personally gave Pathfinder a pass (I was still too burned out on 3.5e to want another game that was basically 3.5e with the serial numbers filed off, to the point where "all your existing 3.5e books are compatible with our game!" was the primary selling point for Pathfinder - not that that held up for long, but it was enough to get the people turned off by 4e who *did* still want to buy more 3.5e products in the door and buying their books), but I was so disinterested in 4e that that kicked off over a decade of trying other games that played nothing like D&D. The aforementioned World of Darkness (new and old), Exalted, Shadowrun and Cyberpunk, Deadlands, Savage Worlds, even obscure things like Legends of the Wulin and Nobilis. Forget d20s, d10s, or even d6s, Nobilis doesn't even use dice! I eventually came back to D&D after 5e exploded in popularity to see what all the fuss was about, and it's... alright. A little bland, though, even compared to the 3.5e and 4e I remember. I haven't seen many D&D players badmouthing 3e or 3.5e - Pathfinder's entire playerbase grew out of that crowd, for example. Some of us gripe about the balance problems we remember, especially in the later years, but when I think "popularly maligned edition of D&D", fourth edition is the one that comes to mind (and that one also had some good ideas, with WotC once again throwing the baby out with the bathwater during the transition to 5e). WotC seems to have a history of overreacting to complaints with their previous edition ("3.5e is an unbalanced mess", "4e doesn't feel like Dungeons & Dragons") when they come out with new ones. Now that they're producing a successor edition to one that *is* still popular (their most popular edition ever!), they're trying to pretend the new edition isn't even actually a new edition. Someday I might run or play another 3.5e campaign using the old standby for balancing the game: just use the Expanded Psionics Handbook for your casters and the Tome of Battle for your martials. Wizards are Psions, Sorcerers are Wilders. Fighters are Warblades, Monks are Swordsages (including unarmed Swordsages). Paladins are Crusaders, etc. Psionic casters are still slightly more powerful than martials, but the gap is much narrower, and Tome of Battle martials can actually do cool things on their turns as opposed to "I full attack" without getting left in the dust. 3.5e had really some cool stuff, you just really had to know what you were doing. A brand-new player making a Druid and taking the Natural Spell feat because they think it'd be cool if their Druid can cast spells while shapeshifted into a bear could leave the rest of the party in the dust entirely by accident, and some of your most overpowered and underpowered classes being in the core rulebook (Druids, Clerics, and Wizards were all top-tier, while standard core-rulebook Fighters and Monks were among the worst) was a big problem.

[@LeozitoCabrit0]

3E and 3.5E is awesome. Not only the ascending AC, but the saving throws got standardized. Cobalt and movement was better decided. The skill system can really be simplified and not all classes are balanced. 4E is a real nightmare. 5E went back to the roots of 3E, and modernized the skills system, simplifying a lot. The 3 additional saving throws were not actually needed. In my point of view 5E made the game much more magical and easy for the players. Maybe the audience today is not used to frustration, so Wizards tried to eliminate every possible source of frustration.

[@KAM1138a]

3e/3.5 is an excellent game and in my opinion it CLAERLY drew inspiration from the 1e AD&D and the "feel" in my mind was a RETURN to that core, where 2e drifted far from it, despite having essentially the same rules as 1e. The mechanical rules were an excellent modernization of a system that was not cohesive (despite being interesting and charming). In my opinion a "slim" version of 3/3.5e is the best D&D.

[@WallySketch]

3e was ok. I mean there was a lot of powercreep, but that quite normal given there was a LOT of content. People were mostly mad about 4e.

[@Lo-Fi_Gaming_]

Yeah 4e is probably the most 'hated' overall!

[@pedromatiasmullervannordt9659]

4e is way better if you forget about the stupid restrictions

[@davidcaddell9290]

I still have my 3.5 core books, and occasionally refer back to them for ideas. I will admit that one thing I would do if i played 3.5 again would be to massively reduce the number of skills. Thats my only huge mechanical issue with the core of 3.5, is the number of skills and tracking skill points.

[@Lo-Fi_Gaming_]

100% agree

[@mrmaster9801]

Reducing the skills was one of my first house rules, back when I played 3.x.

[@aprisia]

My group currently plays what we call DnD 4.25. It has nothing to do with actual 4th edition. It's a compilation of what we feel is the best parts, for us, of 3.5 edition and 5th edition. The base ruleset is 5e, as it does streamline things greatly. But then we bring in parts from 3.5 to override/supplement the base rules. It's little things like the ability to, sometimes, stack a crazy amount of bonuses. This allows things like the epic skill DC chart from 3rd ed to come back. We also severely nerf bounded accuracy. The idea that weight of numbers can overwhelm a truly fearsome ancient threat is ridiculous, if that were true it would never have been able to become a fearsome ancient threat as all the encounters it had in its massively long life would have stacked the deck so far against it surviving it wouldn't have. Finally, there's the fuck around and find out rule. Anything that is truly powerful (gods/archfiends/etc) play by 3.5 epic rules. No, you can't just have 1000 random npcs fight a god and have a chance like it is possible to in 5e, they will never have a chance to win as the math makes their attempts futile.

[@TwinSteel]

I started in 2e and very quickly switched to 3e - loved it - played it constantly until 3.5 came out - I put some of the 3e rules back in when we moved to 3.5 - kept going to PF1 - it was a fantastic collection of editions that were all riffing on the same base 3e built - it was so good that they just went back and simplified it for 5e

[@Bestbake1]

I feel that you've really hit the nail on the head with the points that make 3.0 a great system. It's less cumbersome and more conducive letting things move on without a specific rule. I also appreciate how "closed" it is. Like you said, the splats are few and inoffensive, adding a touch more without the bog down of bloat and filler. Not to mentions there are some great gems there too, like the manual of the planes, savage species, and the stronghold builder's guidebook. It's a translation of AD&D 2e onto a unified mechanic, it still retains the quirks/themes/ideas of the older systems. The way I put it to players is that 3.0 loves AD&D, where as 3.5 loves 3.0. Harm in 3.0 is the same as 2e, just as how shocking grasp and burning hands were transmutation (alteration) spells. Lots of little weird changes happen with the revision that divorced 3.5 (and future editions) from its roots. And honestly, if three spells out of however many hundred soured 3.0 for people, I think folk need to calm down. 3.0 is hands down my preferred base of rules when playing 3.x/PF games. I didn't come into the ttrpg hobby from 3.0 or D&D for that matter, but it's the edition of D&D that I have found myself playing again after a hiatus. Last year I used it to run the PF version of the Castle of the Mad Archmage megadungeon, and now this year I'm doing a short term game of White Plume Mountain before getting my players into The Caverns of Thracia. It's a very fun system with a tonne of good ideas and intentions (even if the concepts like skills and feats are a bit rough around the edges). Don't be afraid to house rule the hell out of any system, make it your own, have fun, and remember that balance is a fallacy :p I highly recommend it! Cheers from Dunedin :)

[@justinchristenson8201]

3.0 and 3.5 and PF 1ed are orders of magnitude better 4th (a waste of paper) and 5th edition (led to the boom in OSR for a variety of reasons)

[@danielmartinontiverosvizca7325]

still playing 3.5

[@MemphiStig]

People love to spew their opinions, which is fine except most of them are empty of actual understanding. People I hear hating on the past, for example, generally do so out of complete ignorance. D&D before 2e was clunky, complex, and problematic, and we loved it. 2e did nothing to solve 1e's problem and a whole lot to complicate the game even further. 3e by contrast introduced the d20 system, which solved a lot of problems and streamlined the mechanics, and 3.5 was definitely an upgrade. But as you noted, there were numerous things in 3/3.5 that got out of hand quickly. And 5e isn't really any better, it's just different, mostly in good ways, but it's certainly no ultimate version of the game. Power creep, complexity, and bloat are just part of it. And no version of D&D, not even 4e, is in any way "rules light." If I had to choose, I'd want to play 3/3.5, if only because I loved it and never got to play it much. (Harm/Heal btw were basically the same in 1e.)

[@Lo-Fi_Gaming_]

I feel you. No edition is perfect. 0e/1e is technically WAYYY more unbalanced but that's not even an issue necessarily. It depends what you're looking for in a game, I reckon.

[@christopherjonas-hamling9397]

I've really have only heard hate on 4e never 3e. I played 3e for years it was fun. Seriously considering getting my 5e group to try a short 3e campaign.

[@Lo-Fi_Gaming_]

Do it!

[@nrais76]

I enjoyed 3rd edition. Feat chains got out of hand (although that was more true of Pathfinder 1e) and a few things weren't done well, but that's true of any system, and some of the issues could be remedied by a good DM. I'm about to buy copies of these core books, having sold mine last year thinking I wouldn't ever play them, my kids naturally suddenly now show an interest and want to try it again, and I hadn't gotten round to selling most of my supporting materials for it. And yes, it's cheap enough I don't even mind having to buy them back, lol. I agree on the sort of transitional feel. I'm old enough to have the same "transitional" appraisal of 2e, as well. Though I started with BECMI and moved to 2e, then 3.0, 3.5, Pathfinder 1e, then D&D5e, since the OSR I've not only read a lot of that, but gone back and read through a lot of the older editions. Each one has elements that are transitional, some more than others. 2nd edition had a lot of transitional elements, and some of them weren't realized terribly well, lol. But yeah, I totally get what you're saying.

[@antieverything1]

As a teenager, 3e was revolutionary and inspirational. As an adult it is a rules-heavy behemoth that I simply don't have the time or energy to deal with.

[@Lo-Fi_Gaming_]

It certainly takes more effort to prepare than other systems

[@Kaiyanwang82]

grug agrees, third grade math too difficult for grug

[@antieverything1]

@@Kaiyanwang82 Grug need work on Grug's reading comprehension.

[@Kaiyanwang82]

@@antieverything1 nah, grug good. grug also can decide which rules to use because grug knows not everything must be used at once.

[@antieverything1]

@@Kaiyanwang82 I don't have the time, energy, or interest to discuss your homebrew 3.x variant, dude. Have a nice day.

[@captainpazuzu]

3rd edition and Pathfinder 1e are still my favorite editions. So many options. So much flavor.

[@groovyvibes852]

Just started up a 3.5 campaign after almost a 20-year break. I researched 5e but nothing in it made me want to check it out

[@sugarymushroom]

3.5 is the only edition I'll play. Love it.

[@mdeluxe1929]

Timestop and Haste was broken.

[@jacklets100]

This is my favorite edition, and one of is most popular here in Brazil! Nice vídeo.

[@Thaloc]

I've played and DMed 3.0 and 3.5 for decades now, and still find this game very nice and easy to learn. The usual issues met were about the "save or suck" things. What I regret a little was that no good campaign existed. And PF1 did the job so well that the GMs have shifted to PF1.

[@BillWiltfong]

3e was really good for the time, and I remember when the 3.5 revision came out I was incensed. When I finally got a document that listed all the major changes, I realized it was entirely an upgrade, and happily switched. As a bare system, 3.5 d20 was the basis for about 80% of my gaming for about 15 years, but mostly because the OGL made the entire hobby huge. Looking back on 3e now, it seems strange to have every possibility spelled out, with set DCs, as if knowing what you can do is somehow difficult, but it sure seemed to work at the time.

[@captcorajus]

What I remember most about this edition was the cool character builder CD that came in the back of the player's handbook.

[@DjigitDaniel]

Thank you for taking the time and effort to make a video on this subject. I didn't even watch most of this video, just hopped from one spot to another for a minute, and can say I probably agree with this 110%. I am a solo gamer now, so other people's opinions are irrelevant to me, but as someone who came into the hobby of RPGs via D&D 3.5 my love for this era of gaming is limitless and earnest. I adore those books and the memories they provided.

[@stevenmarksberry438]

This is the best video on 3.0 that ive seen. I felt the same way when 3.5 came out. As far as converting 2e to 3.0, anyone remember that little pamphlet you could get for that exact thing?

[@pst5345]

i love 3.5. My gang moved on to pathfinder 1e but personally 3.5 is my beloved dnd edition.

[@almitrahopkins1873]

Pathfinder 1st is 3.5. They are fully compatible.

[@Z1gguratVert1go]

I believe in 3rd Edition you start with your maximum theoretical hit points. After that you are rolling, this was to make first level more survivable so that you could get the second level

[@almitrahopkins1873]

That’s how Harm always worked. It was the big stick for the evil cleric. It wouldn’t outright kill, but it would seriously Harm. A good DM could prevent player abuse of that spell by relying on weaker but more numerous creatures in an encounter and the PC cleric’s god refusing access to it. Using what skills a creature has against the PCs is apparently an ability that isn’t terribly common among DMs. I have wiped a 5th level party using four goblins, three wolves and a 3rd level goblin rogue. The trick is for the goblins to hit anyone not wearing armor hard and fast for 2-3 rounds and then run away. The wolves can track, so the goblins will track the PCs to where they camp and try to sneak in for the coup-de-grace. In one particularly memorable case, the goblins killed a wizard, seriously wounded a rogue and killed three horses before buggering off. That night, they hit the fighter with arrows while he stood guard, illuminated by a campfire, killing him outright and then disappearing into the night again. The following night, they snuck in to finish off the party while they were sleeping. That one encounter, spread over three separate combats, caused every one of my players to want to make goblin PCs as replacement characters after seeing what something as simple as goblins can do. It totally derails a campaign sometimes, but that one TPK started a campaign where the PCs were fighting NPC adventurers and other goblins too. And all of that was because I tend to use the skills that the monsters possess, rather than just throwing single creatures with huge numbers of hit points at them. 3e, 3.5 and Pathfinder 1st were the rule sets that made it possible to do it easily. The addition of skills instead of the unworkable non-weapon proficiencies in AD&D 2nd let you hammer out a high-lethality game that wasn’t just hack & slash and didn’t require a degree in mathematics to calculate THAC0 & thief skill percentages.

[@Manweor]

3.0 was in many ways better thank 3.5. It was polished enough, more focused on adventures than player options (a grave sin of 3.5). Prestige classes and the likes were few and very peculiar. A QoL fixes in 3.5 were objectively good, but in the end it wend overboard. Still, these were transitional rulesets from a time when game design was not really solid.

[@Dreamfox-df6bg]

Compared to the prior AD&D 2nd Edition D&D 3.0 was worlds above. 3.5 refined it a little and we only changed to Pathfinder because in our opinion, they refined it further compared to the train wreck that was D&D 4E. For it's time D&D 3.0 was great. Also, in my opinion, one that no one seems to agree with, D&D 5E is just a polished and updated version of AD&D 2nd Edition, but not the game changer that D&D 3.0 was.

[@TriagoZero]

I love D&D 3.5e so much. My first proper experience with tabletop roleplaying games was when covid hit in 2020~2021. I started playing TTRPGs as an adult with D&D 5e, as is tradition at this point. After playing quite a bit of 5e, I got invited to a 3.5e table in January of 2023 and I've been having a blast, it very quickly became my favorite system between the two, and between me having played every CRPG at that point and having already experienced a d20 system, it was super easy to make a character, sit down, and play. There's so much content, so many things you can do and use as inspiration, both as a player and a DM, and I still think having a single codified system to build PCs, NPCs, creatures, etc, is great. Currently, I'm playing in a campaign, with all content available (and with players who adhere to the gentlemen's agreement) in a high-ish level party (my character is about to hit lvl 14) and it's so cool. Each character is so different and can do so many different things, creatures are unique, with the DM throwing enemies with templates and class levels into the fray once in a while, and the magic is wild. It's just so much fun. I really feel that sense of the world being rich with magic and peril. There's a lot of complexity, yes, but the biggest pitfall of the system in my opinion is the abundance of small stacking bonuses one has to keep in mind, and some of them are circumstantial or specific (like having + 1 caster level to spells of type X). it's a lot of tracking. Nowadays, with digital tools (we use gsheet to keep track of everything), it's a lot less of an issue, but still something to keep in mind. People will complain about the balance of the system, how you can make broken characters (both too powerful and too weak) and, while that's definitely true, a benefit that comes with teh system being so old at this point is that the community has all of that mapped out. The group can go in knowing exactly what they are getting into and decide which options to use and how. The system as it is today empowers the group to play the game they want essentially, instead of constraining you to a very specific narrow band, which is a plus to me as I enjoy the game aspects as much as I do the roleplay aspects of the tabletop roleplaying game experience. The change from 3.0 to 3.5e, from what I understand, fixed a lot of small, baseline things. Polymorph, Hastes, better rules for stacking bonuses, the DR changes. Some of those might not be seen as fixes by everybody, but I think for most tables those work better the way they are in 3.5e than how they work in 3.0e. It's pretty funny to see how much Polymorph got changed from 3.0 to 3.5e and then during the lifetime of 3.5e. They really didn't know what to do with that class of spells. And some people seem to think that PF 1e is a replacement for 3.5e, but, the way I see it, it's more of a lateral move. They de-emphasized Prestige Classes (one of my favorite aspects of 3.5e) in favor of having hundreds of archetypes, and pulverized the feats only to make a bunch more feat trees. CMD/CMB is a wash. It makes some things simpler but it's also another thing to keep track of. Anyhow, if you feel constrained by D&D 5e, Pathfinder 2e, or other similar systems, and you'd like something familiar, give 3.5e a go. It gives you a lot to work with, and those things also work great as a canvas or inspiration for homebrew.

[@normanl.6891]

I Never had a problem with 3.0

[@Lo-Fi_Gaming_]

Neither!

[@markmurex6559]

3.5 Psionics is better, but few people use psionic powers, so yeah...

[@jacobwilbers9852]

3.5 takes a strong willed dm that rules the table and does not let players take control of the game be willing to go all out if you have a table of minmaxers if you only have a couple minmaxers give the weaker party members a boon from a god or something to even things out. 2e is a better game if your willing to put in the work as dm to add alot of the crunch and class variety yourself. The thing with 3.5 its built in just have to learn to tell your players no alot more.

[@redbaronlast]

I played (GM'ed) a lot of third edition. I also preferred 3.0 over 3.5. But I mostly have GM'ed PF 1e and liked that a lot (my players loved that system even more than I did as a GM though). My overall favorite edition of D&D ever though is Pathfinder 2e. It is just BRILLIANT imo (coming from someone that has been along since the dawn of 2nd edition AD&D, and has also loved 1e AD&D).

[@Lo-Fi_Gaming_]

Thanks for watching. Glad to hear you’re enjoying PF2e. I’ve only ever skimmed over it so don’t have any meaningful opinion on that!

[@redbaronlast]

@@Lo-Fi_Gaming_I just think the rules (and the rules presentation) of the Pathfinder 2e Remastered is SO good. The Player Core rule book is just dope imo 👌 And I do agree that 3.0 D&D is really good too!!

[@Wiseblood2012]

I preferred 3.0 to 3.5 and Pathfinder but finding people that will play 3.0 is like finding hen's teeth.

[@krinkrin5982]

3.0 was the first edition I ever played and the one I played the longest. Then came 3.5, and Pathfinder, but they all were just upgrades to 3.0. The system is easy to get into and gives a huge variety of options for your characters, especially with all the expansion books they published over the years. The DM support is great, especially for homebrewing stuff.

[@sylvaincousineau5073]

I started with AD&D2e enjoyed it for a long time but I.M.H.O the 3.0/3.5 was the golden era of D&D . It sure have it flaws but the game was so much fun with all the stuff it bring .

[@SwordlordRoy]

I'm among the heretics that liked 4e, I acknowledge it's drawbacks and still love it...only way Im getting it back on the table though is by selling it as a character-focused Skirmish Game though... Anyway, I started playing in 3.5, but had lost the books by the time I set down to DM my first campaign. Fortunately had come across the full core set of these at the used book store my Library runs, so had these to hand. We all fondly remember that campaign (however quirky and prone to problems it was), but I think we all agreed that trying to teach ourselves 3.X from the book was just a lousy idea...I keep wanting to try and give the system another go (despite my love for Martial Archetypes butting heads with Monte Cook's "If you're not playing a Mage then Fuck you" attitude), but between 5e and Pathfinder 2e, only know of maybe one person who I know would be interested...

[@Tabletop_Epics]

It was a very late 90's, early 2000's Wizards of the Coast product. The artwork seemed cool at the time, but now I look at it and just see leather straps everywhere. I started with 2nd, eventually moved to 3.5, tried and quickly dropped 4th, moved to Pathfinder (3.75), made a go at 5th and kept tripping over issues, and then I realized that my copy of Moldvay Basic was far more appealing to me. Also, regarding New Zealand, I ended up playing 3.5 with a former extra from Jackson's Rings trilogy. He was one of the worst players I've ever encountered, because he decided to go full-out Chaotic Evil and tank the game as soon as the party encountered the first NPC in the adventure.

[@Lo-Fi_Gaming_]

Everyone's a little chaotic evil around here ;)

[@barnyfraggles]

Rules aside, hands down the best design for any D&D book imo. That beautiful old tome design with the De Vinci-like pencil sketch art was just *chef's kiss* I find the 5e book design bland and uninspiring by comparison.

[@Lo-Fi_Gaming_]

I love it too. Some of the artwork is a bit ‘of the time’ but the graphic design holds up, even today

[@AncientSlugThrower]

I don't know of anyone who outright hates on 3.0. Most folks prefer 3.5, but I don't think anyone hates on 3.0 like they do with 4.0.

[@Lo-Fi_Gaming_]

I agree that 4e was much more hated than 3e. Having said that, there is a lot of hate online for 3e if you look. Sites like Dragonsfoot almost had to ban discussion of it because of how much people slammed on it

[@FrostSpike]

@@Lo-Fi_Gaming_ I'd put money on that most people slamming it had never actually played it "in anger". It was different to 2e in that it was more "simulationist" - something seen in the 2.5e Combat and Tactics book so just don't play it if you don't like it! No need to hate it, nobody has taken 2e away!

[@MRDRK1]

3 and 3.5 were way better than 4th. I couldn't even understand that mess. Now I use my 3 and 3.5 books as adaptable supplements to my Pathfinder games. And D&D and Pathfinder have their own art styles. I haven't even looked at 5e, because I just don't feel like I need to 'update'. The d20 style of 3rd and Pathfinder work just fine, and I enjoy every moment of it.

[@shallendor]

I love 3.0, it was so much fun! Some of the stuff published in Dragon for it was so very cool!

[@Lo-Fi_Gaming_]

I always thought the Dungeon mags were great too

[@Ork4life]

3.0 is best era

[@Gangrel442003]

D&D 3.0 was the best. 3.5 was totally unnecessary...

[@johnharrison2086]

I agree

[@rogerwilco2]

3e introduced the OGL and d20 system. Two things that are still with us and contributed to the long levity and success of D&D. 3.5 fixed quite a few of its biggest problems, especially with the core classes. It's a bit too detailed and complex, but otherwise its bones have survived in all versions of D&D since.

[@raheemsultan8973]

3.0 is my favorite

[@kailenmitchell8571]

3.0 and 3.5 are superior to 5e.... But that is my opinion.

[@josephbeckett2330]

3.0 Harm was perfectly fine. That is exactly how it had always worked, and made high level Evil Clerics a threat.

[@rorschach1]

3.5 is my hands down, favorite mode of D&D ever.

[@samaranthae9671]

I still play 3.5 kinda (pathfinder) to this day. And prefer it over 4 or 5e

[@Darkwintre]

I still have fond memories of that edition. It took Eberron to make me move to 3.5 but I still have those books!

[@Lo-Fi_Gaming_]

the first version of Eberron is awesome - wish I still had my copy

[@louisup5]

My group does pathfinder 1 with 3.5 stuff stuck in for the bad guys

[@luangu]

3.0 and D20 was my favorite.

[@nobody342]

I started playing Dnd in 1978 ish. Started with basic and converted to 1st edition as the books came out. We played 1e all the way thru 2e but did borrow a few things from 2e. While I acquired the 3e books, we never used them, they presented many problems with game balance ( from a DM's perspective) that we didnt want to deal with. We had already seen the problems from other games we had tried prior to 3e that basicly used the same thing the 3e borrowed from, ya, games like Starwars, Shadowrun,TMNT ect all had the skill systems. Now the problem was the issues it creates for the DM's. Almost any system I have played has been fun for the players, but if the rules put to much burden on the DM to be able to create a long playing world, and puts to great of a work load on the DM, then the end result is, No DM=No GAME! The reality of it is, Basic edition, or one of the OSR clones is what I would recommend anyone new to gaming start with! Ultimately home brewed 1e is a best game. especially if the DM is able to pull snippets from other editions that make the game better for Him as the DM. But Basic D&D works!! Its about Game Balance, and Longevity of a game system, ie slow player growth!!! Rapid power growth is the BANE of a d&d game! and the biggest problem for a DM. Ya, players love the RAPID RISE to POWER, until it all falls apart!!!

[@BlazeGamma]

I came across the 3.0 players guide just a few months ago for a couple hundred dollars in the US

[@Lo-Fi_Gaming_]

Hope you didn't buy it for that much!

[@BlazeGamma]

@@Lo-Fi_Gaming_ lord no. Just saw it for that price. Some of these source books are just pricey. 3.5/ Order of the Stick was my intro and I'm more or less a PF1e grognard at this point to the point where I bought that systems overly inflated book (Book of the Damned), however

[@roblilley76]

I wasn't gaming at the time but ive been led to believe that 3.0 pretty much saved d&d. AD&D2e was slowly dying under a mountain of splat books and campaign settings and hardly anyone was playing it at conventions anymore. Although not a favourite for most people, it seems to have resuscitated the brand when it was flagging badly 🙄

[@Lo-Fi_Gaming_]

For sure. Wizards was doing something right at the time

[@roblilley76]

@@Lo-Fi_Gaming_ it's hard to believe now 😅

[@Lo-Fi_Gaming_]

@@roblilley76 haha

[@mrmaster9801]

3.x had its problems, but it had answers for almost any question a DM could have and I think it's still unmatched when it comes to customizing characters. It also requires either/both a strong willed DM and/or collaborative players to avoid its excesses (super feats chains, op spells combo, etc), unless of course that's what you like. Luckily, my group met all the criteria, so that wasn't a problem. I played/DMed BECMI and 3.x and DMed 5e, finding pros and cons in all of them but still enjoying them all. If I had to choose my favourite edition, it would probably be 3.0, because it was my first long campaign as a DM (1st to 21st) and in the FR, the setting I love the most. Though I homebrewed it so much that in the end I bought the 3.5 manuals, because most of the changes were already included there 😁. But I left it nonetheless, because handling its huge amount of rules, bonus tables and spells was becoming increasingly difficult. 5e solved much of those problems, but created other ones. Currently, I'm running my FR adventures/campaigns with SWADE and the system looks great, expecially after some homebrew to make it a bit more D&Dish (Pathfinder for Savage Worlds helped quite a bit).

[@whitleypedia]

3.0 saved the franchise

[@whitleypedia]

Oh and LOTR coming out in 2001 helped a lot too

[@MalkavX]

I love the idea of this video, but it would have helped the video if more was shown of the rules and book contents, and as a personal opinion is ok, but it is hard to have counterarguments to that. You start mentioning something that I think it is elemental and it is how you can trace very clearly the evolution of D&D AND MOST RPGS at the time by looking at how D&D moved from the latter AD&D books, into 3, then into 3.5 and later into PF. This evolution was genre defining and it altered so much of how games rules were perceived at the time. In this you are right, this was a transition and a big one at that.

[@FrostSpike]

3.0e was a fine edition. As you say, it brought together the ideas introduced in the 2.5e Player Options books (which are still good if you prefer the more 2e rules) into the unified d20 system. We played it until 3.5e came out - we found some scaling issues with higher level play in 3.0e and 3.5e mostly (well, a bit anyway) resolved them. If you play 3.0e with the "Epic 6" style where characters just get new Feats/Skills after level 6, but stay with the same HD, attack bonuses, spells, etc. you don't get those problems. The game stays "gritty" and challenging.

[@Lo-Fi_Gaming_]

Might need to try that!

[@Joker22593]

E6 really is the best way to play.

[@pISSUMTREE]

3e was great ! My long term group loved this rule set . Sadly the release of 3.5 not long after kinda ticked me off ! I just convinced my group to switch to 3e and all of us had invested in many supplements..rule books etc. I ended up rage selling my massive collection out of nerd rage..sigh .

[@grokka]

I don't understand the hate. I basically played this from 2000-2015 and somewhat beyond. Aside from some minor tweaks 3.0, 3.5, Pathfinder 1 are all the same game. Some of the features I loved from that edition were the crafting of magic items where you could make magic items but had to spend XP to invest them with magical power, and the ECL rules for playing monstrous characters. When 3.5 came out the only book I bought was the Players Handbook. I might have eventually gotten round to the Monster Manual. But there were not so many changes that it really mattered. 3.0 felt like a really nice improvement over 2nd Edition which was basically the 3.5 of 1st edition.

[@Ashmoleon2006]

im not sure if this is really true or not but i'd heard in the nineties the second most played ttrpg (after D&D) was actually West End Games Star Wars Roleplaying Game, the old D6 one.

[@jamestaylor3805]

It had some hiccups from being a significant change from 2e in some ways, but wasn't a bad system. People were mad because they lost direct access to all of the character options the sprawling 2e catalogue presented and had a sorta mini revolution against it at a time the ownership of the IP had only recently left TSR and caused a panic with the new ownership. They had planned to translate most of the 2e stuff but got scared into just working on an updated base edition.

[@graveyardshift2100]

Every time I look for 3.0 I just find 3.5 stuff.

[@Lo-Fi_Gaming_]

It would be interesting to know the difference in print run size between 3.0 and 3.5

[@Knightfall8]

having said that, 3.0 discovered the main method to convince players their character builds were unique/personalized - feats. Well, feats as well as fleshed-out magic schools/spheres. But yeah, feats was the ultimate illusion of choice (only a few feat combinations were really any good/interesting) but it was still FUN and it set a new standard for ttrpg design. the aesthetic of the core books were great too - I immensely dislike the actual art for being too cartoonish/comic-booky, BUT the book style of going with sketches and sketch-looking underlines gave each book the feel of an ancient book of deep lore and secrets. 3.0 may not be well-liked but it was VERY important in ttrpg design history

[@Lo-Fi_Gaming_]

Love the graphic design!

[@gozer87]

3.0 and 3.5 were great systems and felt like they were incorporating most of the table rules we had made playing 2e.

[@bustertn2014]

I have played DnD since 1979. I still have my first character I ever played. I loved 3.0 and when it went 3.5, it became the GOAT. At a time when DnD was basically an afterthought, this put DnD in front of EVERYBODY. The D20 OGL brought gaming back. I tried 4.0, just trash. And now the 5.0 is a little to, shall I say politically correct when it comes to the way it's setup, so to each their own. To this day I still have over 150 hardcover books and probably that many soft covers for 3.0-3.5. I am still playing in a group running a 3.5 edition. The players actually prefer this version of DnD since they came from a 5.0 game. It's a bit more complicated they have said, but overall they all say the same thing. More options, and more fun.

[@mellowe83]

I cut my teeth on 3rd edition. However, it is so different from second edition that it’s hard to compare. A lot of what was in third is still present in fifth: Feats, reactions&bonus actions, and AC&DC. However with each interaction things got better a little. Except 4th, fourth was a giant departure which focused on removing the features that people enjoyed. So with 4th aside and old school TSR not withstanding 3rd would be the worst because each subsequent edition was better. With that said still playable I had some good times playing it.

[@blackbarnz]

WotC took over D&D midway in 2e, in 1995 (2e Revised- the different cover). 3e unified the game system. I honestly never heard or seen 3e catch much hate at all. The most common critique I've heard is of "System Mastery" but that's more often accused of 3.5. Ya cant complete the 3.5 collection without some 3e books, ex there's a 3.5 Monster Manual & a 3.5 Monster Manual III but Monster Manual II was only printed for 3e. WotC published errata & updates for all 3e & 3.5 books on their website (might be difficult to find now). The "To hit" math is the same for class & level vs armor bonus between 1e, 2e, 3e, 3.5 & PF1e. A 1st level fighter has the same probability of hitting a character w/ an 5 bonus to AC in 1e,2e,2e Revised, 3e, 3.5, & PF1e its just calculated differently. The biggest boon for 3e was the D20 System. I still love 3e, 3.5, & PF1e they're all basically the same game. Its better to have a rule for everything & 17 variants of every rule than none at all, you can still ignore them just as easily.

[@phoboskittym8500]

3.5 or Die... Its THE BEST PERIOD 5e players will have their minds blown THAC0 was basically a quick math that reflects the 1rst Edition hit tables ( you looked up your score and cross referenced by AC) You can download 3.5 update material for the 3.0 books if you are stuck with a 3.0 books 3.5 just tweeked a bunch of stuff that was messed up in 3.0 I use both 3.0 and 3.5 most people do because some books never got a 3.5 update, just an update .pdf Most people who hate it are 5e players who never really played 3.5/3.0 3.0 - 3.5 barely changed actually Harm is a 6th level spell the opposite of heal... You need to be 11th level to cast that spell, you should be facing pretty tough creatures by then CR 11+ its hardly broken, remember that SR is a thing, also not going to work in any encounters with Undead (which is VERY common) 11th level is powerful look at other 6th level spells a lot of them are doozies 3.5 fixed a lot of the CR ratings for most encounters, traps and monsters Because something with a CR of 11 or 12 would have a good chance of ressisting it even without a saving throw, the cleric needs to make a melee touch attack to use it as well,

[@Knightfall8]

Everyone who crapped on thac0 for being too math-intensive clearly didnt anticipate how bloated with bonuses and modifier calculations 3.5 and pathfinder became. It became very common for players to get lost in the sheer volume of class abilities they had, and keeping track of them all (even for simple characters) became a chore. meanwhile thac0 was like, one subtraction operation, thats it. And your rmodifiers never got insanely complicated. At most it would be your weapon's magic bonus if any, a spell effect bonus if any, and a combat circumstance modifier (e.g. prone, surprise round, etc). 3.0 garned a majority of its player base from crapping on thac0, and sold itself on the basis of having rid itself of thac0 for being "too hard." possibly one of the most dishonest marketing campaigns in ttrpg history

[@Bluecho4]

Can confirm the 3.0 books are cheap. I picked up the trio a couple months ago from an antique store, discovered purely by chance. The whole set cost $18 altogether. I don't even have plans to really play any version of 3e - a bit too much crunch for my taste - but it seemed like too much of a steal not to grab them. At least they look damn good on my shelf, and I can pick them up to look at and mine game ideas from.

[@Lo-Fi_Gaming_]

Great score

[@Kaiyanwang82]

My biggest issue with 3.0 is how many monsters, specifically outsiders, have too few HDs.

[@mikebougiamas3418]

DnD 3.5e is amazing

[@mirieus]

3.0, I remember i ve played it through the neverwinter nights game, I ve killed a lot of dragons with the harm spell, Sooo fun.

[@wyrdwik4610]

I started with 2e drifted away from gaming but got back into RPGs when 3.5 came out. It's a fine system but the rules bloat got out of control over the years.

[@MrAllekzander]

Been playing since 2nd and my happy space in time was a period where we were using a blend of 3.x/Pathfinder. 5th has grown on me enough now that I enjoy playing it, but it still isn't in that 3.x level. 4th was a raging garbage fire, lol.

[@ilmiraculousdibill3686]

I played all the edition except 4th, 3.0/3.5 are by far the best, i love the older editions they were nice but the 3th was a much needed evolution ,and 5e is just MEH...

[@unacceptableknottyprofesso7782]

Unfortunately, I was out of the RPG realm when 3.0 came out. By the time I came back, WotC had released 4e and I had picked up a couple of PHBs for that edition and was just confused coming from 1st and 2nd ed previously. Fortunately, I found a group playing 3.5. Then progressed to PF 1e and loved it. Tried 5ed and PF 2e and really didn't like either so now playing in the OSR world with Basic Fantasy RPG.

[@FaustCrowley]

I played a lot of AD&D and 2nd Ed but barely played any of 3rd. I loved it for a few reasons, though, including Wizards' introduction of the Open Gaming License. I had pretty much burned myself out on buying books by the time of 3.5 so I can't meaningfully compare the two.

[@Lo-Fi_Gaming_]

there were a lot of books!

[@FaustCrowley]

@@Lo-Fi_Gaming_ My biggest regret was not hearing about let alone getting Elder Evil.

[@JeremyLevi]

IMO I liked 3.0 better than 3.5 for the same reason I liked 2.0 better than 2.5. Just too much stuff got added to the point that you'd have players wanting to play some crazy combo character that required 3+ books you'd never seen before let alone read through yet. It was just too much to keep track of for any casual DM or player.

[@Lo-Fi_Gaming_]

That's the part I really like too!

[@geraldwaldrop4598]

3e was fantastic when released. It was countless leagues better than 2e, which laden with far worse than “clunky” mechanics throughout, to put it mildly. I do prefer 5e today because it’s streamlined mechanics require less from me to prep as a DM. But back in my late teens and early 20s when I had much more free time, I loved spending hours crafting NPCs, antagonists and allies (especially as the party approached higher levels and the Epic Level Handbook was released).

[@marjae2767]

Early D20 seemed like a middle-ground between older Dungeons & Dragons and Rolemaster. Similar concepts around skill ranks, roll high to succeed, etc. But D20 classes make it harder to create specific characters, and specific historical characters, without special powers; at least in PF, Rogues aren't going to be very good at animal handling and riding.

[@thgar4850]

The 3.0 edition was not very good, 3.5 was really no better, but both were simply put better than anything since. This includes everything that is coming in the next version(s) that are in and getting close to play testing. For most play, I use the AD&D game.

[@Lo-Fi_Gaming_]

AD&D is great

[@robertburns4429]

Loved 3.0. Enjoyed 3.5 as well. I was driven away from the game by 4.0 and now play PF.

[@spuggym8986]

Coming to this edition from a place of not being a player upon it's release it seems like a very interesting edition, the stylisation too is so dated but I love it, the logo inspired adventure time how could I not love it

[@Lo-Fi_Gaming_]

Thanks for watching! I still like the aesthetic a lot too