D&D 3e: The Good Parts

[Cosi]

The ongoing thread about core balance here (link for future reference (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?528373-Why-Do-People-Think-That-Core-is-Balanced)) has come to include a lot of -- legitimate -- criticism of 3e for its design flaws. But while point out the flaws in things is useful, so is pointing out what is good about them. So without further ado, things that I think 3e legitimately did right (or at least, better):

1. 3e removed a lot of things from AD&D that were dumb and bad. THAC0, separate XP tables by class, racial level limits. Removing those things was a legitimate and important improvement to the game. One of the best things 3e did was unify mechanics.

2. The Monster Manual is an amazing resource for running the game. The ability to open up a book and have a variety of enemies that you can throw at enemies without any additional prep work makes D&D vastly easier to run than it would be otherwise.

3. teleport, plane shift, and the like are very important for player agency. The ability to directly and dramatically influence the plot is a good thing, and one of 3e's biggest flaws was not extending these abilities more broadly.

4. 3e made a serious effort to produce classes whose resource management mechanics were new, different, and novel. Not all of those classes worked, but the fact that the Truenamer, the Incarnate, the Warblade, the Psion, the Beguiler, and the Spellthief all work differently is good.

There's other stuff, but those are things that stand out to me as things that 3e did well, which other games should emulate.

[ColorBlindNinja]

The Tome of Battle and Magic of Incarnum had some pretty neat class concepts and were (mostly) well executed.

From what I've heard, 3.5 Psionics were much better designed than previous editions.

[Lord Raziere]

5. theres a lot of race options available for play that I don't find anywhere else.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Another thing that 3.5 does really well is the sheer number of options for character and world concepts.

There are very few types of games/characters that the system can't support. It might take a bit of work, but it likely can be done.

[Scots Dragon]

Although it drastically increases complexity, the fact that you can customise monsters by adding classes and prestige classes to them is pretty much an amazing facet and doesn't get enough attention for my money. The rakshasa was dangerous enough before, but now it's got levels of eldritch knight and spellsword. Also the fact that you can retrofit many of these monsters into being playable, even if things are ever-so-slightly thrown off by the level adjustment thing.

The idea of prestige classes themselves was an interesting idea, and from a thematic standpoint I really liked the idea of giving them test-based prerequisites as suggested in Unearthed Arcana.

[Quertus]

#1, replacing THAC0 with BAB, was a godsend. Arguably, balance would be better achieved if, in the early game, the Wizard gained levels faster, but was quickly overtaken by the Fighter, so removing separate XP tables is kinda a wash - lose balance, gain ease of use.

#7(?), the ability to add class levels to monsters, was a thing back in older editions. However, it somewhat weakens the point of #2, the ease of having the Monster Manual in the first place.

Also a wash with #2 is the fact that older editions used the same formulae for attacks and saves for monsters, making it really easy to know their stats, whereas 3e has quite the variety, with various formulae, compounded by stats modifying these values.

#5, los of racial options is awesome. It's half of what allows someone to play a Ninja Pirate Zombie Robot.

I'm amazed no one has hit one of my big ones yet: the sheer number of class options. It's the other half of what allows someone to play a Ninja Pirate Zombie Robot.

[ColorBlindNinja]

I'm amazed no one has hit one of my big ones yet: the sheer number of class options. It's the other half of what allows someone to play a Ninja Pirate Zombie Robot.

Well, I touched on broad character/campaign concepts. Class options were more or less included in that.

[danielxcutter]

You can make characters of wildly varying power levels, concept, and playstyle. Do you want to make a master of illusions and shades? Shadowcraft Mage. What about a character that melds arcane magic and focused psionics? That can be done with Cerebremancer. Maybe you want a caster that specializes in sniping targets with potent ray spells. Spellwarp Sniper is your friend.

Seriously, there's very, very little you can't do, or at least come close to. And that is one of the biggest reasons 3.5 is still played despite it's many considerable flaws, at least IMO.

[Scots Dragon]

Seriously, there's very, very little you can't do, or at least come close to. And that is one of the biggest reasons 3.5 is still played despite it's many considerable flaws, at least IMO.

Adding to that is its sheer volume of material. While it isn't as good for flavour as AD&D, there are a lot of sourcebooks and options available that the last two editions just don't have. It's telling that the only thing able to compete with 3E in that respect is in fact just another form of 3E.

I still think AD&D was better in many ways, and certain class concepts were changed rather needlessly and not for the better, but it's hard to deny the wealth of options 3E has available to it.

[Nupo]

Multi-classing in 3e is far superior to earlier editions.

[Nupo]

It introduced a lot of freedom. Earlier editions had limits on just about everything, 3e got rid of most of then.

[gooddragon1]

+Simplicity of the defense mechanics.
+Multiple different potential resource systems (instead of at will, per encounter, per day for example)
+Open ended effects that really take advantage of the game not being like a computer program (illusions, contingencies, etc.)
+Different potential balance points to aim for if you can convince your group to do so

[eggynack]

I've always really liked the design of a lot of the ACFs. Sometimes because it represents a power increase on a class that needs it, sometimes because it's just super neat. The cityscape web enhancement ACFs are especially nice along these lines. They're good, but not overwhelmingly good, and they provide such nifty options. Substitution levels too have that thing where they make previously pointless racial choices suddenly not so pointless. All in all, it's this angle of character design and optimization that feels super different from a lot of others in the game.

[Luccan]

The NPC classes in the DMG were a great way of introducing professionals, commoners, criminals and noblemen that still worked the way PCs did, without overshadowing them. As hired hands or mooks, they were good. The only flaw was a lack of an arcane caster similar in power to the Adept. This was partially fixed with the Magewright, but that's fluff/setting specific.

[ryu]

Sheer bloody-minded number of options available on any given turn for any given class tier 3 or above. This can range from a few dozen possible moves where you have to pick your most effective trick for the weak side of this, up countless hundreds of thousands of millions of possible moves two casters will have access to should they come into conflict. If an RPG is to be considered good I shouldn't be able to consistently pick the single best move available to me for any situation faced within ten seconds of considering the encounter for the first time.

[Florian]

Hm... I was pretty impressed with 3E for some of the already named reasons.
- Unified Mechanics
- Good tactical combat engine
- Reduced need for rulings

Looking back, I was less impressed with 3.5E as they kicked their own design decisions in the nuts the more the edition progressed.

[Quertus]

Well, I touched on broad character/campaign concepts. Class options were more or less included in that.

Ah, sorry, I misread the intent of your statement. :smallredface:


Sheer bloody-minded number of options available on any given turn for any given class tier 3 or above. This can range from a few dozen possible moves where you have to pick your most effective trick for the weak side of this, up countless hundreds of thousands of millions of possible moves two casters will have access to should they come into conflict. If an RPG is to be considered good I shouldn't be able to consistently pick the single best move available to me for any situation faced within ten seconds of considering the encounter for the first time.


- Reduced need for rulings

Good ones!

[ColorBlindNinja]

Ah, sorry, I misread the intent of your statement. :smallredface:

Don't worry about it.

[johnbragg]

The ongoing thread about core balance here (link for future reference (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?528373-Why-Do-People-Think-That-Core-is-Balanced)) has come to include a lot of -- legitimate -- criticism of 3e for its design flaws. But while point out the flaws in things is useful, so is pointing out what is good about them. So without further ado, things that I think 3e legitimately did right (or at least, better):

1. 3e removed a lot of things from AD&D that were dumb and bad. THAC0, separate XP tables by class, racial level limits. Removing those things was a legitimate and important improvement to the game. One of the best things 3e did was unify mechanics.

An under-emphasized part of this was the universal d20 mechanic. Having a go-to mechanic for determining success or failure on any given task--attack roll, saving throw, skill check/ ability check--was a tremendous leap forward. Before 3E, you might have had Nonweapon Proficiencies or Secondary Skills which sorta indicated whether or not you could maybe do something.


2. The Monster Manual is an amazing resource for running the game. The ability to open up a book and have a variety of enemies that you can throw at enemies without any additional prep work makes D&D vastly easier to run than it would be otherwise.

Player-monster transparency. 1st level fighting goblins. Yawn. Except that one fight they're goblin warriors with Point Blank Shot fighting from behind cover, one fight they're goblin Fighters fighting on wolf-back with Mounted Combat and Ride-By Attack, one fight they're using 2-handed Power Attack, one fight they're goblin Rogues and try to ambush the party and do precision damage. And once in a while there's a goblin Sorcerer or Cleric on hand to make thing interesting. (Goblin monks are a different tactical challenge, but I haven't had the gall to try to refluff that.).

Templates. Besides giving vanilla ogres Barbarian levels, you can whip up half-Fiendish ogres, fire-infused ogres, HD advanced ogres, etc.


3. teleport, plane shift, and the like are very important for player agency. The ability to directly and dramatically influence the plot is a good thing, and one of 3e's biggest flaws was not extending these abilities more broadly.

I don't 100% agree, and these were in previous editions. But one of the strengths of d20 is its modularity. E6 exists because the OGL lets you do that.


4. 3e made a serious effort to produce classes whose resource management mechanics were new, different, and novel. Not all of those classes worked, but the fact that the Truenamer, the Incarnate, the Warblade, the Psion, the Beguiler, and the Spellthief all work differently is good.

There's other stuff, but those are things that stand out to me as things that 3e did well, which other games should emulate.

I'm more focused on crediting 3E for the quantum leap improvement over AD&D/2E, but I endorse this thread.

[Darrin]

Another vote for the sheer variety and complexity of options available. The fact that you can build things like Gazebo Jones (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=9823824), Santa Claus (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=14384481&postcount=71), Psionic Sandwich (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=16939527&postcount=27), Trouserfang Dwarf (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=19914255&postcount=43), or Spoons McGee (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=9940342&postcount=171), and with a little fudging here and there, they're still somewhat playable.

[johnbragg]

Hm... I was pretty impressed with 3E for some of the already named reasons.
- Unified Mechanics
- Good tactical combat engine
- Reduced need for rulings

Looking back, I was less impressed with 3.5E as they kicked their own design decisions in the nuts the more the edition progressed.

The massive success of 3.5 is a testament to how great 3rd edition was. We happily gave WOTC another $100 for not very much 2-3 years after buying the 3.0 books.

[Remuko]

if we talk 3.0 over 3.5 i miss Tall vs Long. A lot of the effects of it are still there, such as many large creatures not having the normal reach for their size. i liked having tall and long for sizes instead of unified space for creatures. A horse should not take up a 10 x 10 space, heck even the 3.0, 5 x 10 was a stretch. I basically houserule long and tall rules back into my 3.5 games.

[johnbragg]

I'm DMing 5th for my wife and kids, and I'm starting to miss gp-magic transparency. It got out of hand in 3E, but man it was convenient to take any spell from a book and turn it into a single-use or charged item as loot.

[VoxRationis]

Weapon Finesse (even though it tied it to a feat).

[ATHATH]

Another thing that 3.5 does really well is the sheer number of options for character and world concepts.

There are very few types of games/characters that the system can't support. It might take a bit of work, but it likely can be done.
I'm gonna second this so hard. Seriously, 3.5 is a system where you can have a gentlemanly pig that shoots death lasers out of its eyes that has studied the ways of martial arts so hard that he can teleport... as a PC (that was a Catoblepas Swordsage, btw). It's quite telling of 3.5's versatility and sheer amount of material that we are still discussing it and finding neat gems in it to this day.

[Tainted_Scholar]

How easy it is to create your own material for 3.5. Creating my own class was one of the most fun things I've ever done with the system, and due to the way Saves, BAB, Proficiencies, etc. work in 3.5 it was incredibly easy to do so.


2. The Monster Manual is an amazing resource for running the game. The ability to open up a book and have a variety of enemies that you can throw at enemies without any additional prep work makes D&D vastly easier to run than it would be otherwise.

Wait, 3e was the first edition to have a MM? That's certainly news to me.

Or am I just reading your post wrong?

[johnbragg]

Wait, 3e was the first edition to have a MM? That's certainly news to me.

Or am I just reading your post wrong?


There's other stuff, but those are things that stand out to me as things that 3e did well, which other games should emulate.

I think that Cosi is not saying that the MM was a 3E innovation, but that a future game without pre-gen, ready-to-go monsters is unacceptable.

[Scots Dragon]

I think that Cosi is not saying that the MM was a 3E innovation, but that a future game without pre-gen, ready-to-go monsters is unacceptable.

There really hasn't been one, though. Both of D&D 4E and D&D 5E had Monster Manuals, and I'd argue that 5E's was better all-in-all, and 4E's actually included human NPCs even if I didn't like the application of many of its concepts. Or the fact that it didn't include chromatic dragons.

In terms of actual layout, presentation, and things they chose to include, I'd argue that D&D 3E's Monster Manuals are easily the weakest in the game's history.

[Quertus]

In terms of actual layout, presentation, and things they chose to include, I'd argue that D&D 3E's Monster Manuals are easily the weakest in the game's history.

Wait, what? I can't see it, so I'd love to hear how you come to that conclusion.

Now, we are just comparing MM 1 for each edition, of which there are two in 3e, the 3.0 & 3.5 versions, right?

[n00b17]

6. The core mechanic. There's a reason d20 caught on everywhere, and a big part of it was that there was a single way of resolving any action. Just roll vs DC

[SimonMoon6]

Player-monster transparency.

I would add as a corollary to this something that is completely taken for granted these days: monsters *finally* had the same statistics as PCs. Every monster now had a strength rating (which previously they only got in an issue of Dragon magazine). Other than strength, the only stat that monsters had in their stats block previously was intelligence (and that was still a range of values). Monsters didn't have DEX, CON, WIS, or CHA. But finally they did.

Of course, that was also somewhat necessary to figure out the DEX bonus to AC. Which is another great thing: there was suddenly now a difference between AC and touch AC, which had not existed previously.

I think a lot of great work was put into mundane combat (like AoOs and 5 foot steps) and making it seem reasonably balanced (as long as you don't consider magic). It's just a pity spells didn't get the same attention.

[Goaty14]

Druids

Books and homebrew
(I honestly don't know what you call non-core books)

Each non core book shows an example of types of homebrew that can be implemented, in the sense that it shows how to make relatively balanced material.
However, I have yet to see a book that describes how to homebrew-balance broken things.

[Bullet06320]

OGL was one of the best things, it let others put out material using the core mechanics, material that wouldn't have been done by WOTC.
it gave people the ability to do so much more, there's so much 3rd party out there that to work with that built upon the new core mechanic
it allowed pathfinder to become what it is, what should have been 4th edition, instead of what we ended up with

[Scots Dragon]

Wait, what? I can't see it, so I'd love to hear how you come to that conclusion.

Now, we are just comparing MM 1 for each edition, of which there are two in 3e, the 3.0 & 3.5 versions, right?

The main reasoning is that D&D 3E's Monster Manual removed the line-up of NPCs and such from the actual book. Both books, at that. Previous and later editions both included a pretty wide variety of pre-built NPCs of various types for the players to encounter. Something that in D&D 3E would have to be built from scratch by the Dungeon Master. I think that there were advantages to the way that D&D 3E handled monsters, such as by way of the inclusion of templates and monsters having clear-cut ability scores for the first time, as well as many of them being handled pretty much just in the same way that player races were (see: kobolds, orcs, goblins, etc.) but in terms of an actual book I don't think the Monster Manual itself was the strongest it could possibly have been.

I also didn't think it was formatted very well, with the monster entries bleeding into other pages a lot, but this is quibbling.

Maybe calling it the weakest was an exaggeration, since the D&D 4E Monster Manual had issues given that it had the lowest amount of monsters per capita without even being a binder so that the DM could switch out the monsters needed for the specific campaign, but that's neither here nor there. I do think the D&D 5E Monster Manual was better overall, even though as an edition issues of being decently handled are probably the opposite way around.


If you're wondering, the best Monster Manual was in fact the AD&D 2E Monstrous Manual, even though it took them about four years to get around to realising that they needed a proper fully-fledged hardcover rather than the binders they were using previously, but the fact that it more or less became the default Monster Manual kinda makes it more forgivable. Kinda.

[Florian]

Right now I think that the new format Paizo is using looks like the best.
The "Monster Codex" focuses on one type of critter, lists race-specific feats, equipment and archetypes, then presents a variety of pre-build NPC ranging from CR1 to 20. The "Villain Codex" does the same with a focus on organizations.

[johnbragg]

Monster modding. I'm running 5E with my family, and there's a mining complex that amounts to a maze or labyrinth. I really want to put a minotaur in who takes advantage of the maze using hit and run tactics. In 3E, swap out the listed feats for archery feats or Spring Attack, boom, done.

I'm sure there's a way to do it in 5E. It's just so much more obvious in 3E, because it's the same way a PC would build to do it.

[Hackulator]

Monster modding. I'm running 5E with my family, and there's a mining complex that amounts to a maze or labyrinth. I really want to put a minotaur in who takes advantage of the maze using hit and run tactics. In 3E, swap out the listed feats for archery feats or Spring Attack, boom, done.

I'm sure there's a way to do it in 5E. It's just so much more obvious in 3E, because it's the same way a PC would build to do it.

In 5E you can just hit and run, no feat required :smallbiggrin:

[Uckleverry]

Everyone can do hit and run tactics by default in 5e.

The OGL really was one of the most impactful features of 3e. It had a massive effect on the industry as a whole.

[King of Nowhere]

I would say streamlined mechanics (monsters and players having the same kind of stats, d20 used for everything), skill system and internal consistency.

sure, you can fight with pretty much any system, but with 3e you can make a whole world, and you can explain how and why it works with much less handwaving that you would otherwise. you have much more consistent ways to handle the party in noncombat situations

[ColorBlindNinja]

I would say streamlined mechanics (monsters and players having the same kind of stats, d20 used for everything), skill system and internal consistency.

sure, you can fight with pretty much any system, but with 3e you can make a whole world, and you can explain how and why it works with much less handwaving that you would otherwise. you have much more consistent ways to handle the party in noncombat situations

That is another plus for 3.5; there are rules for almost anything.

[Scots Dragon]

I'm gonna add in the elite opponents (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/arch/eo)and fight club (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/arch/fc) articles on the Wizards of the Coast website as having been utterly amazing.

[Mendicant]

sure, you can fight with pretty much any system, but with 3e you can make a whole world, and you can explain how and why it works with much less handwaving that you would otherwise. you have much more consistent ways to handle the party in noncombat situations


That is another plus for 3.5; there are rules for almost anything.

This is my favorite thing about 3.x, hands down. It's just such an ambitious, robust system. The rules aren't exactly a physics engine, but they do give this strong sense that the world outside of the characters is humming away, and that they're really exploring something tangible. I can't think of another system where I got this impression so strongly--while 3.X and, say, FATE are both functionally a couple of people sitting down and running through a series of scenes, FATE always felt much more like being on a set. There wasn't really anything else out there. 3.x's scale always gave me deeper immersion as a player and more to play with as a GM.

[Arbane]

6. The core mechanic. There's a reason d20 caught on everywhere, and a big part of it was that there was a single way of resolving any action. Just roll vs DC

I'd argue that had way more to do with the OGL than anything inherently great about d20.

[Mendicant]

I'd argue that had way more to do with the OGL than anything inherently great about d20.

The two interact very well with eachother. A roll-over d20 system is simpler to design for--probabilities are easier to calculate than with a normally distributed RNG, and having tried to design around a percentile roll, d20 is more elegant imo.

[atemu1234]

The encouraged ability of players to make their own content for the game is what sells it for me; third party stuff, as well as the better homebrew, pave the way for greater enjoyment of the game for everyone.

[Jama7301]

I didn't play a ton of 3.xe, but I always enjoyed the Prestige Classes as a concept.

[Luccan]

I'm gonna agree with Prestige Classes being great, particularly originally. They got hit pretty bad by power creep, but as a way to customize and focus your character in a unique fashion with abilities that are mostly unobtainable otherwise, it was a cool idea. I don't want them brought into 5e, but if some future edition should try to do 3.X "right" revisiting the idea with that in mind would be nice.

[VoxRationis]

As I've looked at 3.5 over time, I've become less enamored of prestige classes, and not even for balance reasons. Rather, I have found that they promise these great concepts, but lock all their fun, signature abilities behind too many levels for these concepts to come into play before high level. I think prestige feats, particularly tactical feats, would have been a better design choice in many cases.

[Mendicant]

As I've looked at 3.5 over time, I've become less enamored of prestige classes, and not even for balance reasons. Rather, I have found that they promise these great concepts, but lock all their fun, signature abilities behind too many levels for these concepts to come into play before high level. I think prestige feats, particularly tactical feats, would have been a better design choice in many cases.

I go back and forth on this. Certain prestige classes have this problem, but not all of them, and as a mechanical idea I think it might be more elegant than trying to do the same thing with feats. If the balance issues with PrCs could be bad, the emergent complexity of a'la carte class features would probably be even worse for balance and also less intuitive to build with.

[Florian]

I go back and forth on this. Certain prestige classes have this problem, but not all of them, and as a mechanical idea I think it might be more elegant than trying to do the same thing with feats. If the balance issues with PrCs could be bad, the emergent complexity of a'la carte class features would probably be even worse for balance and also less intuitive to build with.

The Problem with PrC is two-fold.

1) Classes are designed from 1 to 20 and PrC often are "more powerful" than that.
2) A lot of PrC lack the prestige and only go into the mechanical details. Incidentally, that leads to Pc-stacking and abuse.

So, PrC > Base class is a serious problem.

[ColorBlindNinja]

The Problem with PrC is two-fold.

1) Classes are designed from 1 to 20 and PrC often are "more powerful" than that.
2) A lot of PrC lack the prestige and only go into the mechanical details. Incidentally, that leads to Pc-stacking and abuse.

So, PrC > Base class is a serious problem.

In the other direction, there are more than a few Prestige Classes that are absolute garbage that no one in their right mind would take.

Risen Martyr is probably the worst offender.

[martixy]

OGL was one of the best things, it let others put out material using the core mechanics, material that wouldn't have been done by WOTC.
it gave people the ability to do so much more, there's so much 3rd party out there that to work with that built upon the new core mechanic
it allowed pathfinder to become what it is, what should have been 4th edition, instead of what we ended up with

This. Soooo so so very much this. Above all else. Above all the mechanical tidbits and polish and 1p content.
OGL created a unique ecosystem. It made 3.5 the Skyrim of tabletop gaming.

Also, I argue that the Snowbluff axiom is a strength of the system, not a weakness.