Do we have records of the 3.0and 3.5 playtests?

[Goladar]

My DMs reasoning for limiting access to sourcebooks is that they weren't playtested like core is. So do we know how the 3.0 and 3.5 playtests were conducted? Did they use any optimization? What were the builds and adventures they played through?

Thanks!
GI

[Hurnn]

Have you tried explaining that 90% or so of the least balanced / most broken things are in core , and why?

[emeraldstreak]

My DMs reasoning for limiting access to sourcebooks is that they weren't playtested like core is. So do we know how the 3.0 and 3.5 playtests were conducted? Did they use any optimization? What were the builds and adventures they played through?

Thanks!
GI

My condolences for having this DM.

[Telonius]

Unfortunately I think most of the records either don't exist (because of nondisclosure agreements) or were part of discussions that were wiped out when various other forums shut down (for one reason or another). The general received wisdom is that the Wizard characters were mostly lobbing fireballs, and I remember seeing several different sources who claimed that the Druid forgot that he could Wildshape. Not sure how accurate those are, but for what it's worth.

Just in general, though - 3rd edition started taking off in the earlier days of social media, and had a lot of ideas that were holdovers from 2nd ed. Some of this was reflected in the balance issues in the PHB. They were much more worried about a high Strength, for example, than high mental stats (as evidenced by the Half-Orc's stat adjustments), and it was years before Monks were generally accepted as being underpowered, instead of overpowered (as some people thought they might be in the early days of 3.0). It wasn't until tens of thousands of nerds had the chance to really pick through the rules that stuff like the Batman Wizard sifted to the surface.

[ComaVision]

This (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/tt/20050809a) isn't playtest but it may help you out anyway. It's some Wizard's employee recounting how his group killed a Balor. The wizard shoots arrows the whole time and the cleric runs around healing.

[Goladar]

Have you tried explaining that 90% or so of the least balanced / most broken things are in core , and why?

I've tried, but he's not interested in having that conversation. He's been playing for 30 years and he's(i believe) set in his ways. Oh yea, he's fine with CArc because he's used it a lot and thinks it's also balanced.

[Psyren]

Wait, you mean 3.0 was playtested?

[Grod_The_Giant]

I've heard that the Druid ran around TWF with scimitars and only ever used Wild Shape to scout. Which... explains a lot about the Druid's balance, if true.

[Goladar]

Wait, you mean 3.0 was playtested?

Was it not?

[GilesTheCleric]

If your GM is a 30-year vet, explain to them that allowing splats is like adding in players options and whatnot. On the whole, it provides more options that are not necessarily better, but different. There are a few things that stand out like the Bladesinger did, and there's some things than can change the game like Unearthed Arcana did, but just like in older editions, they're a minority. Allowing splats isn't the same as saying "all characters can now use Elven High Magic for free".

In terms of balance, I think the community here as a whole will support me when I say that splats are better balanced than core, on average. Think about it: the designers continued to publish more material, each time with greater feedback, experience, and skill. It makes sense. It's why ToB, published right at the end of 3.5's lifespan is probably one of the best-balanced books available. It's one of the few books where just about 100% of content meets the game's assumptions about 4 encounters/ day, each draining 25% of resources, of CR +- 4 within the party at a weighted rate.

Many of the other subsystems are similar -- eg incarnum is decently balanced overall, and though psionics does have its exploits, it's nowhere near as broken as spells are with low op. With the subsystems, the designers were able to get away from the completely broken core spell lists, and make decent game content.

[Psyren]

Was it not?

I mean, I'm sure they did something internal before release, but I can only conclude they never actually tried to use things like Haste, Darkness, Harm/Heal, Summon Monster, just about anything to do with Psionics...

[ComaVision]

Wait, you mean 3.0 was playtested?


Was it not?


I mean, I'm sure they did something internal before release, but I can only conclude they never actually tried to use things like Haste, Darkness, Harm/Heal, Summon Monster, just about anything to do with Psionics...

The PHB for 3.0 had playtester credits. The PHB for 3.5 did not have playtester credits.

Now, the extent or quality of the playtesting, on the other hand...

[Dagroth]

Tomb of Horrors had playtest credits... :smalleek:

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Telonius
It wasn't until tens of thousands of nerds had the chance to really pick through the rules that stuff like the Batman Wizard sifted to the surface.

This is worth keeping in mind. There's only so much that a comparatively small design team can do, especially working under deadline pressure with all the baggage of corporate expectations.

They certainly can't match the subatomic dissection of every book, page and line that's taken place in the years since 3.0 was first released. And a few rounds of playtesting hardly compares to the nonstop blast furnace of hundreds of thousands of campaigns around the world.

So I'm inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt. It's easy to make claims from the far side of the product's lifespan, but it's worth remembering that this was new territory all those years ago.

[nyjastul69]

I've tried, but he's not interested in having that conversation. He's been playing for 30 years and he's(i believe) set in his ways. Oh yea, he's fine with CArc because he's used it a lot and thinks it's also balanced.

There is unbalanced stuff in CArc as well as core, as well as just about every splat book. There is balanced stuff in CArc as well as core, as well as just about every spalt book. Try suggesting to your DM that maybe he could ban individual elements of books instead of a wholesale ban on them.

[Starbuck_II]

This (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/tt/20050809a) isn't playtest but it may help you out anyway. It's some Wizard's employee recounting how his group killed a Balor. The wizard shoots arrows the whole time and the cleric runs around healing.

To be fair, the Cleric took Bow of non-Violence so he can't do much but buff, heal, and stuff.

But yeah, the Wizard saved spells and used a Holy bow.
Took them 2 rounds to do 50 damage (turn 4 to turn 6).

They were 16th level, but still I expected better.

[Goladar]

There is unbalanced stuff in CArc as well as core, as well as just about every splat book. There is balanced stuff in CArc as well as core, as well as just about every spalt book. Try suggesting to your DM that maybe he could ban individual elements of books instead of a wholesale ban on them.

I think he doesn't want to take the time to look over everything.

[Telok]

I was there when 3.0 rolled out. By the time the third splatbook was out we were seeing issues. The halfling sorcerer was riding around on air elementals, pulling scry-and-dies on personal enemies, and had more hit points than the monk. The fighter was moaning because whirlwind turned out to be crap and he didn't qualify for any of the new PrCs coming out while the monk could run kinda fast and get plastered in melee. The rogue could hide from anyone but couldn't find another rogue and it's not like anyone else had skill points to put into spot.

Then 3.5 came out and nothing got fixed while Natural Spell became core and the melee guys got some nerfs. At least in AD&D the casters were fragile and clerics couldn't out-fight the fighters.

[Mordaedil]

Then 3.5 came out and nothing got fixed while Natural Spell became core and the melee guys got some nerfs. At least in AD&D the casters were fragile and clerics couldn't out-fight the fighters.
I don't recall 3.5 nerfing melee characters also lol @ AD&D clerics not being beasts in combat. I don't think casters have been fragile since AD&D 1st edition, unless that is what you meant.

[Hurnn]

Wait, you mean 3.0 was playtested?

Can I please Sig this? :smallsmile:

[Swaoeaeieu]

I think he doesn't want to take the time to look over everything.

he wont have to. as a dm you might want to familiarise yourself with a sytem or subject. But you as a player can just ask ''can i use X from book Y'' and that would be all he has to look at in detail.

[Nightcanon]

Have you tried explaining that 90% or so of the least balanced / most broken things are in core , and why?

Have you tried playing a core-only Tier 1 to show him that core is unbalanced despite all that playtesting?
Pre-release playtesting is all very well, but it can be limited in scope, and can be skewed by assumptions that are carried over from previous editions or by accompanying designers' notes. What we have on this forum is vastly more post-release playtesting, which gives far more detail than pre-release testing ever could.
Plus, WotC haven't got a great record with recognising and correcting balance issues in the game. Look how long it took them to realise that Sorcerors and Wizards had far to many 'dead levels' compared to classes that always had something to look forward to, like Monks, for example...
As an aside, imagined or 'rediscovered' logs of playtest games would probably make entertaining reading in either prose or comif strip format..

[Grim Reader]

This is worth keeping in mind. There's only so much that a comparatively small design team can do, especially working under deadline pressure with all the baggage of corporate expectations.

They certainly can't match the subatomic dissection of every book, page and line that's taken place in the years since 3.0 was first released. And a few rounds of playtesting hardly compares to the nonstop blast furnace of hundreds of thousands of campaigns around the world.

So I'm inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt. It's easy to make claims from the far side of the product's lifespan, but it's worth remembering that this was new territory all those years ago.

That is true for 3.0. I can see how some issues, like MAD followed from 2nd ed play assumptions.

However, that they didn't have any level of professional competency by the time 3.5 rolled around is not something I can give them the benefit of the doubt about. I mean, its not like thy didn't have forums where they could get minute dissections of functionality, but they seemed to go out of their way to actively avoid feedback on balance issues.

So when 3.5 comes around and they are still going "The Ranger must have a nerfed Animal Companion compared to the Druid, because the Rnager has "gasp" FULL BaB!" there is really no excuse.

[Mordaedil]

Look how long it took them to realise that Sorcerors and Wizards had far to many 'dead levels' compared to classes that always had something to look forward to, like Monks, for example...
To be fair to your sarcasm here, fixing the dead levels would go a long way to making the classes feel better.

Albeit, the monks "abilities" need fixing up as well.

[Gemini476]

If your GM is a 30-year vet, explain to them that allowing splats is like adding in players options and whatnot. On the whole, it provides more options that are not necessarily better, but different. There are a few things that stand out like the Bladesinger did, and there's some things than can change the game like Unearthed Arcana did, but just like in older editions, they're a minority. Allowing splats isn't the same as saying "all characters can now use Elven High Magic for free".

What, like Player's Option: Skills & Powers? Excuse me while I go cast Meteor Swarm as a first-level Cleric... :smalltongue:

Splatbooks (especially late-TSR ones) have a certain tendency to be unbalanced (in one way or another: Shining Blade of Heironeous, etc.) - they don't necessarily ever get playtested, after all, while the corebooks get a lot more attention and development time. (For obvious reasons.)
The issue with 3E is that they vastly changed the system from how it worked in 2E but, apparently, kept testing it like it was 2E... This is also why some of the later splatbooks are more balanced, since they actually started to understand the system. The Hexblade sucks because they overvalued combining arcane spellcasting with armor - the Duskblade is much more generous on the same concept, and the developers have said as much.


The developer PCs are in Enemies & Allies, by the way, which is where you get the thing with the Druid focusing on scimitar-chucking. IIRC they also had some big playtesting thing in the organized play scene, but I don't know where you'd find records of that - old Dragon magazines, probably.


Also, if you don't actively try to break it and use those weird DMG suggestions for including large groups of mooks and whatnot then the classes are a bit more balanced than they end up with later encounter design? Running a combat with sixteen orcs is a pain, though, so you eventually just move to the "every encounter has an encounter level equal to the party's average level and one-to-four critters in it" of later adventures and whatnot. And then suddenly all those single-target save-or-lose spells get really overpowered while all the "kill a bunch of mooks" feats the Fighter gets (Great Cleave, Whirlwind Attack, etc.) just stop mattering. (Incidentally, Fireball is also alright when you're attacking creatures eight CRs beneath your level. Who knew.)

[weckar]

To be fair to your sarcasm here, fixing the dead levels would go a long way to making the classes feel better.Introducing: The Warlock

[Nightcanon]

To be fair to your sarcasm here, fixing the dead levels would go a long way to making the classes feel better.

Albeit, the monks "abilities" need fixing up as well.

Indeed, fixing dead levels is a great idea; the problem is that they neglected to count gaining extra spell-levels as getting something at level-up; even the worst full-caster levels grant 2 spells known of the player's choice, plus increased numbers of spell slots, and a new spell level comes along next time. But the cleric is considered to have 19 dead levels, and only one special ability (turn undead, which scales with level and remains useful), while the barbarian is described as 'one of the finest examples of character class design' for its new special ability each level (even though many of these are increased uses of rage or another point of DR). Meanwhile the monk also has no dead levels. Somehow gaining the ability to heal two hp per level per day (7th level), or a once per week touch-only disintegrate (15th) or at-will Featherfall (20th) is special in ways that increasing castings of Divine Power, Summon Monster 8, or Miracle aren't. This is stuff put out by WotC in 2006, 6 years after 3rd Ed D&D debuted (post playtesting). This is my personal exhibit A in support of the case that they really had no idea what they were doing.

[Psyren]

For those who dislike dead levels, have you tried Pathfinder? There, you're generally either getting more class features, more spells, or both.


Can I please Sig this? :smallsmile:

Go right ahead.


I was there when 3.0 rolled out. By the time the third splatbook was out we were seeing issues. The halfling sorcerer was riding around on air elementals, pulling scry-and-dies on personal enemies, and had more hit points than the monk. The fighter was moaning because whirlwind turned out to be crap and he didn't qualify for any of the new PrCs coming out while the monk could run kinda fast and get plastered in melee. The rogue could hide from anyone but couldn't find another rogue and it's not like anyone else had skill points to put into spot.

Then 3.5 came out and nothing got fixed while Natural Spell became core and the melee guys got some nerfs. At least in AD&D the casters were fragile and clerics couldn't out-fight the fighters.

"Nothing got fixed" in 3.5 is a bit unfair I'd say. It wasn't perfect by any means, but neither was AD&D.

[Necroticplague]

"Nothing got fixed" in 3.5 is a bit unfair I'd say. It wasn't perfect by any means, but neither was AD&D.

At the very least, it fixed two specific broken things: Harm (used to flat our reduce you to 1d4, regardless of previous HP level), and Haste (use to give an extra 'partial action', which translates to 'extra standard or move action')+Speed armor/boots of speed.

These were, respectively, changed to 10 damage/level, changed to just give a numbers buff, and changed to only be 10 rounds/day.

[Anonymouswizard]

I also think that part of the problem is that early playtesting focused on low op (sword+board fighters, fireball wizards, happy clerics), while this forum tends towards high op playtesting. So when WotC saw Evocation specialists as balanced we jumped on Divination wizards and found that they're generally better.

Bare in mind I've seen at least the different 3.75 home-brews on this forum, which tend to start from the idea that wizards are too versatile and fighters too limited (heck, my own version WaR [Wraiths and Ruins] stats from this assumption) and mainly carry on of they think buffing the fighter or needing the wizard is more important.

But yeah, splats are generally more balanced sure to note limited careers and more versatile mundanes.

[Telok]

I don't recall 3.5 nerfing melee characters also lol @ AD&D clerics not being beasts in combat. I don't think casters have been fragile since AD&D 1st edition, unless that is what you meant. The nerfs were bits like not having the crit range stuff stack, not having speed/haste weapon attacks stack, and combat expertise style feats limited to +/-5 BaB. Not big stuff but it hit the melee and ignored the casters. For fragility the addition of the concentration skill, unlimited Con bonus to hit points, and more and better AC boosters is a big benefit to a mage's survivability. We saw tenth level wizards go from 10d4+20 max hp and about 0 AC (convert to about 20 AC in 3.5) in AD&D to 9d4+44 average hp and around 30 AC in WotC D&D (Con on our casters became a priority when the bonus hp cap was removed)


At the very least, it fixed two specific broken things: Harm (used to flat our reduce you to 1d4, regardless of previous HP level), and Haste (use to give an extra 'partial action', which translates to 'extra standard or move action')+Speed armor/boots of speed.

These were, respectively, changed to 10 damage/level, changed to just give a numbers buff, and changed to only be 10 rounds/day.Heal/Harm was just a change, I can't make a case for it being better or worse either way. Haste, once they removed all the downsides in translating it from AD&D to the WotC version was probably too good for casters. It never broke melee in any form.

But yeah, the monk/caster thing really happened to me. Scry, Invisible, Teleport, three large elementals, Power Word Stun, was totally a thing within that happened with my first 3.0 character. While the monk ran around and punched people while getting hammered. And it was about the time the third splat book came out. I kind of regret not saving any doc... I'm pretty busy for the next two days but I had a Dragon Mag subscription during the changeover, and I still have some of them. I will search.

[Lans]

I think they also had a higher amount of wealth than would be expected for their level

[Crake]

This (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/tt/20050809a) isn't playtest but it may help you out anyway. It's some Wizard's employee recounting how his group killed a Balor. The wizard shoots arrows the whole time and the cleric runs around healing.

That story was painful to read. A balor with +33 spellcraft should have been able to pick up on the spell immunity, could have easily thrown a couple more greater dispels, or hell, even an insanity or two, didn't even try to dominate (though we all know how well that generally goes down in high op, these guys might not have been carrying items of continuous prot from evil), didn't summon any demons, didn't think to flame whip the wizard before taking out the dwarf, and the wizard declared moment of precience after rolling the dice and seeing a poor number, bleh. I mean, I get that it's supposed to be a cool story and all, but I just hate stories of 10,000 year old demon masters of the abyss being felled by a raggletaggle group like that.

[Troacctid]

Every book should have a design team and a development team credited on the Credits page. Those are the teams that design and playtest the content.

The Design & Development (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/arch/dd) column from the old Wizards archives should give some insight into the process. There are also some earlier versions of pre-release content floating around, like this prototype of the Illumian race (http://web.archive.org/web/20041207024604/http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/iw/20041114b&page=2).

[Lans]

Thank you I was thinking about that at work, and didn't think it was still around

[Goladar]

Found a page with old news articles from wotc.

http://www.enworld.org/ericnoah/3eoldnews9.htm

[Aharon]

In Dragon #274, Kim Mohan writes about the playtesting process. They had about 100 groups with 600 individuals. Playtesting wasn't focused on balance a lot, according to this article, but more on fundamental questions what should change from 2nd edition and what should stay the same - stuff like making AC work the way it does in 3rd Ed, instead of 2nd Ed, and attribute generation (4d6 drop lowest as standard).

The process was open-ended. Wizards sent out material and asked everyone to share their observations. They also used surveys to supplement this feedback - lists of questions they wanted to be answered by all testers (for example attribute generation, see above).

[lord_khaine]

To be fair, the Cleric took Bow of non-Violence so he can't do much but buff, heal, and stuff.

But yeah, the Wizard saved spells and used a Holy bow.
Took them 2 rounds to do 50 damage (turn 4 to turn 6).

They were 16th level, but still I expected better.

I do think thats a little unfair though, a Balor is a rather tough opponent if you dont optimise significantly, or have the support of the hive-mind.
It got SR, good saves, True Seeing, elemental immunities and the demon type. Thats something it can be a little tough to deal with when your not shroddingers wizard or have been able to pick your spells with needing to deal with such a thing specifically in mind.

Plastering it with Holy arows is as such not a bad idea. The weirdest part is why the heck the wizard had Manyshot in the first place. But i find it hard to protest about people experimenting with builds in those early days.

[Zombimode]

We saw tenth level wizards go from 10d4+20 max hp and about 0 AC (convert to about 20 AC in 3.5) in AD&D to 9d4+44 average hp and around 30 AC in WotC D&D (Con on our casters became a priority when the bonus hp cap was removed)

A 3.5 wizard with 30 AC is a wizard who wasted a lot of resources.

For the hit points you ignored the fact that damage overall is much higher in 3.5 then in 2e. If anything, a 10th Level wizard in AD&D can survive better Standing next to a melee Monster (maybe taking like 4d10 in total) then in 3.5 where Standing next to a melee Monster is a good way for getting smashed to paste in one round (ie. a Fire Giant dealing something like 9d6+45 damage in a turn).

[Gemini476]

Eh, a Wizard can get away with not grabbing a lot of feats and if you tend to run out of spells for whatever reason (constant nuking with high-level spells, I guess?) you'll want something to fall back on.

And, well, that something probably isn't going to be a melee weapon. And crossbows kind of suck in comparison to bows, so from a low-op perspective grabbing bow proficiency (from being an Elf, perhaps) and a bunch of ranged combat feats makes some manner of sense.

If you're not too big on metamagic and crafting (and remember, Wizard 20 gets bonus feats) then the core feat list starts to look a bit sparse after a bit.


Also, while the Balor is extremely dangerous if played to its strengths, if you just run it with the suggested Monster Manual tactics it's a bit... yeah. Blasphemy/Fire storm/Implosion => Power Word Stun/Insanity => Full attack+grap => Teleport/fly to re-establish range => repeat.
That's something you can beat with a strong unoptimized party.

[Zanos]

A 3.5 wizard with 30 AC is a wizard who wasted a lot of resources.
Greater Mage Armor (+6), 14 Dex(+2), Alter Self(+8), Shield(+4)
That's 30 for at least one encounter. Might want to grab a shield that isn't a spell though. Getting those down to 0 ACF isn't too hard.


Also, while the Balor is extremely dangerous if played to its strengths, if you just run it with the suggested Monster Manual tactics it's a bit... yeah. Blasphemy/Fire storm/Implosion => Power Word Stun/Insanity => Full attack+grap => Teleport/fly to re-establish range => repeat.
That's something you can beat with a strong unoptimized party.
Remember that you're actually fighting 2 balors, because a balor can automatically summon another balor once per day as a standard action, and summon abilities are included in a monsters CR. So you're gonna have a bad time if you aren't immune to blasphemy while one balor chain-dazes you every turn and uses his quickened telekinesis and the other one just sets it's blender to vorpal.

[Telok]

In Dragon #274, Kim Mohan writes about the playtesting process. They had about 100 groups with 600 individuals. Playtesting wasn't focused on balance a lot, according to this article, but more on fundamental questions what should change from 2nd edition and what should stay the same - stuff like making AC work the way it does in 3rd Ed, instead of 2nd Ed, and attribute generation (4d6 drop lowest as standard).

The process was open-ended. Wizards sent out material and asked everyone to share their observations. They also used surveys to supplement this feedback - lists of questions they wanted to be answered by all testers (for example attribute generation, see above).

I've just gone through my old Dragon Mags, the playtesting was done in 1998 and 1999, 3e was announced at Gen Con in 2000 and the books started coming out in late 2000. There was however no word of anything about the feedback or playtesting, just that it happened and that surveys were send out. Then about 6 issues later there's "power play" suggestions that a 20 Con gnome wizard with toughness, a toad familiar, and only using Mage Armor and Shield and fighting in melee is a 'strong' character. In addition there are bunches of NPCs printed where you have things like 10th level wizards wearing leather armor (normal, not masterwork or enchanted) and spending feats on Run and proficiency with longspears, but they have Polymorph Self memorized. So I really have no clue what the people at WotC actually got from the playtesting.

There was however at one point an admission that bad saves were supposed to scale much worse than save DCs and you were expected to fail those saving throws.


A 3.5 wizard with 30 AC is a wizard who wasted a lot of resources.

For the hit points you ignored the fact that damage overall is much higher in 3.5 then in 2e. If anything, a 10th Level wizard in AD&D can survive better Standing next to a melee Monster (maybe taking like 4d10 in total) then in 3.5 where Standing next to a melee Monster is a good way for getting smashed to paste in one round (ie. a Fire Giant dealing something like 9d6+45 damage in a turn).

Nah, AC is cheap. Plus there are only three ways to not take damage in combat: not being attackable, miss chance, and AC. The first two cost spell/item slots and actions unless you're pulling out TO cheese stuff, AC is passive and always active. Plus, for the game I'm in, 30 AC is still generally 50% or less defence at level ten and 25 AC is pushing down into auto-hit territory.

You're sort of helping to make my point on the defences thing. The AD&D wiz with a 16 Con runs about 45 hit points at 10th level and 55 at 20th level, plus auto fails spell casting for being hit in melee. That 4d10 damage is Juiblex and T-rex levels of damage in AD&D, so a wizard tanking a demon lord for two rounds is pretty good. Contrasted with the 3.5, 18 Con, wiz at 66 hp (up to 147 at 20th level) where I see you assume that the fire giant hits with all the iterative attacks which both doesn't happen if you have a 30 AC and the wiz gets to keep casing because cast of the defensive auto-succeeds at those levels. Finally don't forget that giants are some of the heaviest hitters for their CR. So yeah if wizzy sucks all the attacks from a full attack he'll die (barely), but even a pitiful 20 AC (mage armor, shield, dex, this is the AC of a first level wizard) turns the last attack into a 50/50 chance.

[Efrate]

I never played 2e pnp, just some of the games, but I think there was a huge holdover. Look n any module or stated NPC, its all terrible. Like run and toughness terrible. I get it that you are not using most splats for the most part, but the amount of terrible that you were "supposed" to be is kind of mind boggling. How many cleric 9/wiz 7 or the like in full plate do you see? Sword and sorcery modules have a lot of those, and I am pretty sure that is a holdover from 2e. My guess is a lot of the extra content stuff was just hastily updated and put out to sell with 3e.

Having played 3.0 and 3.5extensively, they did some things right. The heal and hurt changes, haste being a standard action, etc were all good. Also I think wish had a caveat about cannot wish for an item worth more than 5k gp or something, I no longer have my 3.0 stuff but I vaguely remember a gp limit. I hate the DR changes, I like metal + alignment, but I think the numbers should still be at 3.0 levels, were DR 30 or 40/+x was a thing. DR 30/cold iron magic and good I think feels a lot better for a serious threat than DR/15 good or cold iron. It make some things unhurtable if you were unprepared, and I think thats fine, if only casters didn't just ignore that.

Like 3.0 golems being pretty reasonable mage killers, compared to the "unbeatable SR" nerf that 3.5 has. Yes higher op ignores them/silent images/doesn't care about them them, but I like the fact that they had a better chance and forced you to rely on other things.

The game being "balanced" around t4/5 is an issue in and of itself, and I think that might be largely do to people being holdover converts from 2e and doing things in a way that was closer to that but again no 2e experience.

I've heard the tale of the druid who was specced for using a throwing and returning scimitar when not on healbot duty, not using wild shape except to scout, and wizards being hurr durr blasters, without metamagic usually, but I have never seen an actual log of anything, I do not think was was kept. If it was, and they made it public as part of their testing, after people picking it apart, maybe some things would be changed.

[Necroticplague]

Like 3.0 golems being pretty reasonable mage killers, compared to the "unbeatable SR" nerf that 3.5 has. Yes higher op ignores them/silent images/doesn't care about them them, but I like the fact that they had a better chance and forced you to rely on other things.

To be fair, making magic immunity SR:infinity clarifies a lot of things that otherwise don't make a whole lot of sense. "Wait, so they're not immune to cave-ins, unless you use magic to make the earthquake, even thought the rock they're hit with is the same nonmagic rock either way?" "So, can you just walk through the explicitly nonmagical Wall of Stone because it was formed with magic?" With SR infinite, it's just spells that directly impact you with magic, anything else is SR:no.

[danielxcutter]

If I recall correctly, part of the reason casters are so powerful and martials suck in core was because Monte Cook(or whatever that guy's name was) liked Wizards and didn't like martials.

[Efrate]

I much prefer the 3.0 made by magic? don't care doesn't matter implacable killing machine for golems. Yes they walk through non magical wall of stone. Or wall of force. Not RAI at all but I like something that all the magic in the world can do nothing about and that is a real threat to anyone attacking a place where it guards unless they can fight it on its terms at a disadvantage. Or just make them have a personal range AMF with CL:Nope. Allows for similar stuff and stops silent image: we walk by.

[Kurald Galain]

There was however at one point an admission that bad saves were supposed to scale much worse than save DCs and you were expected to fail those saving throws.
To be fair, 4E and 5E make the exact same assumption. Looks like this is just a common idea among game designers.

[Telonius]

I never played 2e pnp, just some of the games, but I think there was a huge holdover. Look n any module or stated NPC, its all terrible. Like run and toughness terrible. I get it that you are not using most splats for the most part, but the amount of terrible that you were "supposed" to be is kind of mind boggling. How many cleric 9/wiz 7 or the like in full plate do you see? Sword and sorcery modules have a lot of those, and I am pretty sure that is a holdover from 2e. My guess is a lot of the extra content stuff was just hastily updated and put out to sell with 3e.

Showing example NPCs is actually a pretty good point. Shackled City was made in the very early days of 3.5. Check out the stats for some of their NPCs. Just opening the appendix and giving two examples on one page:

Fighter5/Cleric9. That odd level of fighter still makes my teeth grind.
Fighter6 focused on Dwarven Urgrosh.

One of the recurring NPCs? Ends up as Aristocrat1/Ranger9/Cleric9.

This is the sort of character that they thought would make for a good challenge for a group of adventurers. When I ran the module, I had to rebuild about 3/4 of the NPCs to give my players any kind of a challenge. (Which is a real shame, since the story was probably one of the more enjoyable ones I've seen).

[RedMage125]

"Nothing got fixed" in 3.5 is a bit unfair I'd say. It wasn't perfect by any means, but neither was AD&D.

I quite agree.

I started playing in late 2e (around 1996 or so), and found the mechanics cumbersome to actual play. Most of my friends soon adopted (or even created) other gaming systems.

I got into D&D from 3.0 and every edition since. And some of the changes to 3.5e were quite welcome. In 3.0 a Lawful Good Paladin 1/Ranger1/Fighter x was a very common melee build. As a holdover from 2e paladins and rangers got all their goodies right out the gate at 1st level (lay on hands, detect evil, divine health, divine grace, favored enemy, track, TWF feats). Monks were even worse in 3.0; druids had no spontaneous summoning, and they would get more Hit Dice worth of animal companions, bards could not cast in armor, fighter didn't even have Intimidate on their class list, and Sorcerers had ZERO CHA-based skills on their list, and a Wizard's choice of specialty school dictated which schools he had to take in opposition.

Changes to spells have already been mentioned extensively, but monsters were affected as well. Some Large creatures still occupied a 5x5 square. others, like a centaur, had a 5x10 space. 3,5 abandoned simulation-ism in favor of a more streamlined sizing system that basically made it clear that a monster's space in combat was an abstraction. Facing in combat was a thing, which made the Shield spell worse. And made flanking more complicated at times.

[Kurald Galain]

"Nothing got fixed" in 3.5 is a bit unfair I'd say. It wasn't perfect by any means, but neither was AD&D.

Yes. In addition to what Redmage said, I remember reading the 3.0 PHB for the first time and noticing I could get most of the bard's class abilities for just a one-level dip (since they depended on ranks in Perform, not on bard levels). And there were oddball skills like Innuendo that pretty much no other RPG has used before or sinc. And so on.

It's pretty obvious that WOTC used the collective experience of years of public play and feedback to create 3.5. It's by no means perfect, but still a big improvement. Notice how very few threads in this forum even talk about 3.0 rules any more and they all assume 3.5 by default? Yeah, this is why.

[Eldariel]

3.5 ****ed up some things: the removal of crit stacking placed a nerf where none was needed, the change of Monk's bonus speed to enhancement and the change of Haste into a flat +30' was a bit silly (though yes, 3.0 Haste was hideously broken), Enlarge was made simultaneously less interesting and significantly more powerful, the alterations to combat dynamics (particularly the removal of facing) has some far-reaching implications, etc.

However, by and large 3.5 was an improvement. TWF got ITWF and GTWF in Core; sure, those should never be separate feats but at least they exist. Less fortunately, so does Natural Spell. Polymorph Other is no longer permanent so you need Polymorph Any Object to be walking around as a Firbolg all day long. The stat buff spells (Bull's Strength & al.) don't last all day so stat-boosting items are actually useful. And now you can't (and don't need to) metamagic the stat buff spells. For good or ill, Divine Power got a rather significant buff; but Divine Favor and Righteous Might got much-needed nerfs even though Clerics are still incredible warriors. And there's a lot of streamlining.


But yes, a level 16 Wizard who manages to not prepare a single useful spell (even stuff like Polymorph Other, Haste, Glitterdust, etc. that's always useful) about sums up the playtest or the lack there-of.

[lord_khaine]

But yes, a level 16 Wizard who manages to not prepare a single useful spell (even stuff like Polymorph Other, Haste, Glitterdust, etc. that's always useful) about sums up the playtest or the lack there-of.

I think thats rather unfair though. There is a huge difference between spells that are useful. And spells that are useful when fighting a Balor.

[Inevitability]

I think thats rather unfair though. There is a huge difference between spells that are useful. And spells that are useful when fighting a Balor.

I disagree there. Good buffs are still good. Summon Monster and Polymorph are versatile enough to be useful in almost any scenario. Walls of Stone/Force may not block teleportation, but the action the balor needs to get past them mean a net win for your party.

Sure, SoD's and blasting may lose some of their punch, but even those will have more impact than a fancy longbow.

[Eldariel]

I think thats rather unfair though. There is a huge difference between spells that are useful. And spells that are useful when fighting a Balor.

Well, all the generally useful spells are useful for fighting Balor. It just so happens Balor has little to no in terms of relevant immunities; just elemental ones. It certainly has good saves, but even a (Quickened) Glitterdust is a much better use of a Wizard's actions than attacking with a bow. Or Greasing its sword. Or whatever. A generic bogstandard level 1 Conjurer built for a normal adventuring day could contribute more than this level 16 Wizard! Enlarge Person (well okay, in 3.0 it wouldn't be as good)! Ray of Enfeeblement! Even bloody Color Spray that might stun it for a turn is better than a Wizard trying to attack with a bow if he could beat the Spell Resistance (but note that Grease doesn't care about such)...

EDIT: How does one get ninja'd by 40 minutes? I guess I just found out.

[Hecuba]

My DMs reasoning for limiting access to sourcebooks is that they weren't playtested like core is. So do we know how the 3.0 and 3.5 playtests were conducted? Did they use any optimization? What were the builds and adventures they played through?

Thanks!
GI

Relatively little was released about the 3e playtests, and likewise for 3.5. in both cases, it was mostly snippets in promotional materials and events.

I didn't pay a huge amount of attention to those for the 3.5 update, but I did pay attention to those for the 3e rollout, and am not shy about sharing them.

An important cavet: take my recollections with a grain of salt. This was nearly 2 decades ago, and it was not a topic I regarded as immensely important at the time. Moreover, hard details would be exceedingly hard to find at this point - in many cases, there was no digital copy and it was promotional material, do I doubt many kept hard copy.

The general discussion of playing and design efforts that happened in advance of 3e release focused on whether it was going to remain "true" to AD&D. That's understandable, as it was one of the major concerts off the core market pre-release. There was discussion about wizards still throwing fireballs, and whirlwind was discussed as replicating the fighter's ability to sweep down weak does. Publically discussed snippets were big standard dungeon crawls (or appeared that way from what little we saw). There was also a truly banal amount of discussion about the process of updating 2e characters to 3e (which is, I guess why 3e had rules for how to multiclass at level 1?)

All of this is to say that, from everything they told us, 3e playtestsing was mostly about backwards compatibility and not about preventing issues in emerging play. That means your GM's position is Shakey at best