The last thing I miss about 3.5 is something that I think a lot of players may not agree with. Character balance. Balance is over rated in my opinion. At the lower levels the guy with the sword is the power house and magic users of similar experience level shouldn't stand a chance against them, but if that magic user can survive long enough to reach higher levels, the guy with the sword shouldn't stand a chance. A wizard can change reality with his power, but a fighter just learns to swing his sword with more skill. Bending over backward to balance classes breaks that concept for me and hurts immersion. Both have been valuable and fun at all levels since D&D was created, so why not keep it that way.
I agree that playing a wizard should feel vastly different than playing a fighter, but I think game balance across level progression is essential. Many campaigns that I run only last about 5 levels, so should I be telling people in my level 1-5 campaign to just not pick a wizard because you will never get powerful enough? That doesn't seem fair to me. I don't like the idea of fighters having daily powers or wizards lobbing fireballs every single round like they're candy, but even if fighters swing swords and wizards bend reality, they need to be equally useful to a party across all levels.
This is one area that I like Pathfinder's attempts to balance 3.5, because they tried to give low level wizards more to do without completely changing them, and they tried to give high level fighters more abilities to make them useful against that great wyrm red dragon at level 20. It wasn't quite enough in my opinion, but that is definitely one area that I think 3.5 was lacking in.
This is one area that I like Pathfinder's attempts to balance 3.5, because they tried to give low level wizards more to do without completely changing them, and they tried to give high level fighters more abilities to make them useful against that great wyrm red dragon at level 20. It wasn't quite enough in my opinion, but that is definitely one area that I think 3.5 was lacking in.
Oh sure. I'll say right now, I hate Pathfinder, and would never play it unless there were...uh...."happy times" involved after these sessions. But, even I can say that the improvements they made to the classes are, by and large, great when you compare those same classes to their 3.5 dopplegangers. Its just that those changes didn't go far enough for some classes. I mean, sure, a 17th level fighter has a +4 bonus to attack and damage rolls with his trained weapon, a -4 to his armor check penelty, a +4 to his max dex bonus (we'll be nice and assume that also means +4 to AC), and a +4 vs will saves against fear. This is exclusive of any bonuses from feats or archetypes/alternate class features.
A 17th level Wizard starts getting 9th level spells.
Gold is for the mistress, silver for the maid Copper for the craftsman, cunning at his trade." "Good!" said the Baron, sitting in his hall, "But Iron -- Cold Iron -- is master of them all." -Kipling
Defenders: We ARE the wall!
I've replaced the previous Edition Warring line in my sig with this one, because honestly, everybody needs to work together to make the D&D they like without trampling on somebody else's D&D.
Miss d20 Modern? Take a look at Dias Ex Machina Game's UltraModern 4e!
The only thing 3.5 had going for it was the Modular class system. Almost every other mechanic is better done by 4th. All the things outside of this i see people claiming that 3.5 could do 4th could do as well.
The only thing 3.5 had going for it was the Modular class system. Almost every other mechanic is better done by 4th. All the things outside of this i see people claiming that 3.5 could do 4th could do as well.
Multiclassing is one of the things on my list of what 3.5E (and all previous editions) did badly and 4E does badly in a different way.
"The world does not work the way you have been taught it does. We are not real as such; we exist within The Story. Unfortunately for you, you have inherited a condition from your mother known as Primary Protagonist Syndrome, which means The Story is interested in you. It will find you, and if you are not ready for the narrative strands it will throw at you..." - from Footloose
The only thing 3.5 had going for it was the Modular class system. Almost every other mechanic is better done by 4th. All the things outside of this i see people claiming that 3.5 could do 4th could do as well.
Multiclassing is one of the things on my list of what 3.5E (and all previous editions) did badly and 4E does badly in a different way.
While 3.5 does cause balance issues with its system it did allow for an easy multi-class system.
What I liked most about 3rd edition was it wasn’t 2nd edition I liked the roll a D20 and you ADD your bonuses there were no THAC0 or complex charts to reference
I liked how you could multiclass like a fiend and that once you start a new class you wouldn’t forgot the stuff you learned in the old one.
No more racial limits on classes
A unified xp chart
I liked the prestige classes
The skills were good, I think there were too many it would have been better with fewer Maybe consolidating some of them (like profession and craft ect)
4th went a little to far with the fewer skills but went in the right direction
I wasn’t to keen on the skill point system, with fewer skills and additional skill points would have been better (IMO)
over all I think 3rd handled non-combat encountes the best
I really didn’t care for the vancian spell system of the previous editions
I didn’t like the multiple attacks – you usually only hit on the first or second attack anyway
as a DM I didn’t like the monsters, building encounters was a chore (4th edition got it right)
Building a monster or modifying a monster felt like work
When I started working on our version of D&D I went through every page of the core books for every edition and did a Like/Dislike/??? list. I'll repost the 3rd edition part of it here. It's shorthand, and may seem contradictory in parts with no explanations, but if anyone really wants explanations I can give them.
Like - equal ability modifiers, views of int/wis/cha & roleplaying, giving races bonuses in niche, differing base speed by race/size, gnome tendency towards illusion, size mattering, Halflings closer to kinder, expanded classes, single leveling chart, attribute increases with level, barbarians, bard spell list, bard countersong, druids, fighter bonus fighting feats, monks, ranger favored enemy, vital attack over backstab, sorcerers inherent power casting, wizard bonus metamagic, class unique powers, spell in armor restrictions, skill ranks, simplified skill check system, higher starting skills than per level, single religion based on setting, aging impacts, metric money, weapon sizes, armor impacts & limitations, masterworks, dying to -10, style choices, behind the curtain, degrees of success, variant power components
Dislike - scope of attributes (1-45+), blanket inability to use spells for low stat, human gets few racial advantages and no dis, gnomes aren’t unique enough, Halflings having no homeland, clerics too militant, too much weapon proficiency by classes (ie groups), paladin split focus (purpose, attributes, knight/priest, etc), ranger two-weapon, ranger weapon groups, loss of rogue % skills, sorcerers as dragon born, imbalanced skills per ability, skill point distribution, feats separate from class, lack of mount focus, prestige classes
??? - favored classes, inherent racial proficiencies (weapon especially), halfbreeding, multiclassing, BAB, unique classes/abandon class groups, bard ‘spells’, clerics all armor types, spontaneous casting, druid weapon list, loss of backstab, rogues only for trap detection, int spell level requirements, other than wizard familiar, class skills, DC for all die rolls, taking 20, trained only skills, some feat functionality, combat as miniatures, critical ranges and damage by weapon, double weapons, streamlined and unified rolling, action types, bard/sorcerer spontaneous casting, counterspelling, 4d6 for attributes, skills relation to classes
DISCLAIMER - Everything said by anyone is absolute subjective opinion. There are no objective claims being made by me, or anyone else, unless they overtly state 'The following is an objective claim'. At this point if you choose to be offended by anything I (or anyone else) say the problem is ENTIRELY your own.
WotC won't let us give them money because they won't produce a game we want to play.
3E introduced the concept of having any race be any class in D&D, and got rid of ability score requirements to play a class/race. That was pretty cool to me.
Stronghold Builder's Guidebook. It's one of the two 3E books I actually kept. I still enjoy a lot of the ideas in that book!
Being able to break down everything into its components so that I could easily create my own custom content. (Granted BESM d20 helped a lot with this)
A) Flexibility (lots of different mechanics, races, classes, ....)
I really liked that I could be a WIZARD/CLERIC/PSION etc, tring to master all spelcasting.
I could play evil PCs with just my player's handbook.
Future: Multyclassing souldnt be weaker than specialists.
Yes your fireball will be weaker compared to an archmage's fireball but your Divine Psi-flame sould be of equal magnitude.
B) No Roles ("We are all from the thieve's guild. We are screwed")
I recall campains with 6 assasins or a lone sorcerer etc. Focusing on roles prevents PCs from playing what they want so they play what is neceserry instead (becomes more strategic than roleplaying game. The mechanics should not punish players that didnt want to have healers/leaders/etc on their team.
Future: Since roles are widely accepted it should be incorporated but plz as an optional/variant rule.
C) Spell effects/Magic (if only wizards wouldn't run out of spells...)
Spells were different, with fluff. (I dont like the generic in all classes: "3d6 and immobilized"). You could also enlarge, cast them silently etc. They were many. Tomes & Tomes of spells and choices. You could feel like an arcane student studing spells.
Future: Add wide variety of spells but let them modifiable. Also let people do things with arcana/spellcraft like moving things or activating effects.
Not just every answer sould be a spell nor is a spell just what it's writen on its description.
Note: Never, NEVER let Casters out of spells. It's like cripling your fighter's arm. Sure they souldn't cast fireball "All day... all night" but let a fire mage cast burning hands as much as he wants to. (that's something I liked a lot in 4e)
D) Magic Items
In 3.X magic items = AWESOME. They where powerfull and not too common. The discovery of one led the party to cheers. And not just the "+3 on attack thing". Im talking about the spectacular ones. (The Deck of many things... etc. Ok that was an artifact but anyway).
Magic items should feel like Magic items. If players find them too often or if items are weak, like just altering the damage without adding some power, makes them look less potent, less magical, less mysterious.
Future: I would enjoy a "+3 fire-spellstoring-bla-bla-... sword". Legacy items come to mind
Whatever you do plz make it possible for us to be able to roleplay the Werewolf half drow sorcerer-fighter-cleric of Bane but do not restrict it to the point that the character will abandon his idea because mechanicly is weak (like binders... Soooo nice stuff yet nothing compared to other classes. What a waste )
Remember, it is a game of fantasy and imagination so try give us endless possibilities.
Finally, thank you for giving your fans the ability to help expand the spark that Mr Gary Gygax & the other started and preserved.
)