Is 3.5 the best edition of D&D currently out there?

[Impulsive]

I've recently had a hankering to play some D&D and it was looking over the various editions and thinking back on them, specifically the issues that existed within them that got me thinking.

Do you think 3.5 is the best edition of D&D that currently exists? That does not mean it is perfect, it has alot of obvious issues that have been combed over extensively but i do feel like it was a step in the right direction but the problem was it never evolved from there.

4e was a mess and pathfinder hardly fixes the problems that came with 3.5, it makes some improvements maybe but in my mind has also added some on top of that.

Actually writing all of that out now, that is the one thing i find so disheartening today, the two most popular systems out there right now. D&D and Pathfinder haven't really evolved at all and its both sad and funny that the one game that beat D&D was basically D&D given a repaint.

[Prak]

That's basically my stance, though I phrase it differently- 3.5 is the least bad D&D game. It has serious problems, but not as many as other editions/games.

That said, if one is prepared to deal with problems, PF has creator investment and current publication in it's favor. Archetypes are interesting, too.

5e is not... well, ok, it has some real problems. But if you want to introduce a newbie to gaming, or play a really shallow beer and pretzels game, it's not a bad option.

[angelfromanotherpin]

I think one of the earliest threads on this board was about how most of the 3.5 changes were either pointless or counterproductive. None of the real problems were fixed, and for every change that was good, like two bad ones made it in, and once we start talking about non-core material, the divide gets worse.

So 3.0 is probably the best published edition of D&D that currently exists. Various nonpublished houseruled versions that clean up some of the more egregious shit in it is better than that, though.

[Josh_Kablack]

Personally I think 3.5 is marginally better than 3.0. My own opinion of the changes between the editions broke down roughly like this:

70% Change for the sake of change and or change that attempted (yet failed) to address a rules issue the fanbase had complained about in 3.0

15% Net positive change

10% Net negative change

5% Not actually a change, but different layout or phrasing made the rule more newb-friendly

[Rawbeard]

I prefer Pathfinder, because it doesn't make me use a level adjustment for playing anything that isn't on the human color spectrum.

[erik]

I only give 3.5 the edge over 3.0 because it has more material written for it. If 3.0 had as many books/prestige classes/weeaboo stuff then I'd prefer 3.0 without question.

Polymorph is a clusterfuck through and through. Its impact reverberates throughout the game even early on thanks to monsters, Druids, and Alter Self (or Alters Elf, as my elven casters called it). So, errata on that spell alone can weigh heavily on the scale.

The best edition is 3.houserule as there are worthwhile features in each version of 3rd edition, and also things that they never fixed in any edition.

[Ancient History]

The best edition of D&D was Earthdawn 1st ed.

[DeadlyReed]

Hmm, don't really want to derail this topic, but what about later editions of Earthdawn?

[maglag]

I think one of the earliest threads on this board was about how most of the 3.5 changes were either pointless or counterproductive. None of the real problems were fixed, and for every change that was good, like two bad ones made it in, and once we start talking about non-core material, the divide gets worse.

So 3.0 is probably the best published edition of D&D that currently exists. Various nonpublished houseruled versions that clean up some of the more egregious shit in it is better than that, though.

3.5 had Tome of Battle that gave sword/axe dudes nice things. Paladins/Bard/Rangers also benefited a lot from splats, allowing them to actually keep up with monsters. Rogues got ways of sneak attacking plants/constructs/undead on their own.

If you want to play anything besides wizard/cleric/druid in 3.0, you're gonna suck really hard once you get out of low levels. "But the wizard could polymorph the fighter into a troll for long durations!". Or the wizard could hire some nameless warrior for cheap and polymorph them into a troll for pretty much the same effect. You weren't playing a fighter. You were playing the wizard's personal bitch.

[Username17]

3.5 had Tome of Battle that gave sword/axe dudes nice things. Paladins/Bard/Rangers also benefited a lot from splats, allowing them to actually keep up with monsters. Rogues got ways of sneak attacking plants/constructs/undead on their own.

If you want to play anything besides wizard/cleric/druid in 3.0, you're gonna suck really hard once you get out of low levels.

I think a lot of people forget just how badly warriors of all flavors got nerfed by the changes to the monsters in 3.5. The 3.5 Vrock has almost twice as many hit points and DR/Bullshit instead of DR/Level Appropriate Magic Weapon like the 3.0 Vrock does. Running up and stabbing enemies in the face with a level appropriate magic weapon was just much more viable in 3e than it was in 3.5. Like, the Iron Golem in 3.0 just needs a +3 weapon to damage, which by the time you're facing an Iron Golem you should have. And it has a lot less hit points, so running up and stabbing it is a thing that should work.

A lot of the basic enemies got changed in 3.5 to just be harder to beat by stabbing with a weapon. All of the changes to monsters except the massive nerf to Tyranosaurus bite damage make it worse to be a melee guy. And almost all of the nerfs to feats and prestige classes act as a kick to the shins of warriors. A 3.0 San Diego Super Charger was just fine at murdering level appropriate opposition, and needed a lot less books to do it than their 3.5 equivalent.

-Username17

[erik]

While I did yield 3e's superiority to 3.5 almost entirely on the basis of Book of 9 Swords, it does feel weird to do so because I never ever used that book and I don't even know anyone who owns it.

If you want to play anything besides wizard/cleric/druid in 3.0, you're gonna suck really hard once you get out of low levels. "But the wizard could polymorph the fighter into a troll for long durations!". Or the wizard could hire some nameless warrior for cheap and polymorph them into a troll for pretty much the same effect. You weren't playing a fighter. You were playing the wizard's personal bitch.

Um, what crack smokest thou? A no-name warrior polymorphed into a troll isn't remotely equivalent to polymorphing a PC. Your HP don't change, so all you do by turning peons into trolls is create some paper tigers. In my group our main brawlers (a monk and an arcane archer) adventured in Stone Giant polymorph forms and while they did rely upon the wizard to cast this once in a blue moon, its permanent duration made it a lot less onerous than say, getting healing from a divine caster. The biggest problem with polymorph wasn't that it made you a wizard's bitch, it's that not everyone wants to play a giant.

[maglag]

If you want to play anything besides wizard/cleric/druid in 3.0, you're gonna suck really hard once you get out of low levels. "But the wizard could polymorph the fighter into a troll for long durations!". Or the wizard could hire some nameless warrior for cheap and polymorph them into a troll for pretty much the same effect. You weren't playing a fighter. You were playing the wizard's personal bitch.

Um, what crack smokest thou? A no-name warrior polymorphed into a troll isn't remotely equivalent to polymorphing a PC. Your HP don't change, so all you do by turning peons into trolls is create some paper tigers. In my group our main brawlers (a monk and an arcane archer) adventured in Stone Giant polymorph forms and while they did rely upon the wizard to cast this once in a blue moon, its permanent duration made it a lot less onerous than say, getting healing from a divine caster. The biggest problem with polymorph wasn't that it made you a wizard's bitch, it's that not everyone wants to play a giant.

Considering how cheap no name warrior NPCs are, then yes an army of paper tigers was still superior (and cheaper) than having one of the PCs waste their class on sword/punch dude.

I think a lot of people forget just how badly warriors of all flavors got nerfed by the changes to the monsters in 3.5. The 3.5 Vrock has almost twice as many hit points and DR/Bullshit instead of DR/Level Appropriate Magic Weapon like the 3.0 Vrock does. Running up and stabbing enemies in the face with a level appropriate magic weapon was just much more viable in 3e than it was in 3.5. Like, the Iron Golem in 3.0 just needs a +3 weapon to damage, which by the time you're facing an Iron Golem you should have. And it has a lot less hit points, so running up and stabbing it is a thing that should work.

A lot of the basic enemies got changed in 3.5 to just be harder to beat by stabbing with a weapon. All of the changes to monsters except the massive nerf to Tyranosaurus bite damage make it worse to be a melee guy. And almost all of the nerfs to feats and prestige classes act as a kick to the shins of warriors. A 3.0 San Diego Super Charger was just fine at murdering level appropriate opposition, and needed a lot less books to do it than their 3.5 equivalent.

-Username17

You're forgetting a key detail:

Vrock has DR 20/+2 (3.0) or DR 10/Good (3.5)
Flesh Golem has DR 15/+1 (3.0) or 5/adamantite(3.5).
Clay Golem has DR20/+1 (3.0) or DR 10/adamantite(3.5).
Stone Golem has DR 30/+2 (3.0) or DR 10/adamantite (3.5).
Iron Golem has DR 50/+3! (3.0) or DR 15/adamantite(3.5).

See a pattern? 3.0 monsters have massively higher DR scores. So if sword dude doesn't have a proper weapon, he's gonna plink away uselessly in 3.0, but can reliably punch through in 3.5.

That goes doubly when you take in account that 3.5 Power attack gives you more damage when two-handing (+2 per -1 to hit, whereas in 3.0 is always +1 damage per each -1 to hit), so I really don't understand where you're getting that uber-chargers were better in 3.0, since a 3.5 sword dude dishes more damage and has an easier time just overcoming DR with raw damage. The Iron Golem got +30 HP yes, but sword dude is dishing out +13 damage per hit at 3 attacks per round at that level before any splats.

[erik]

Those DR +'s are all easily achievable for their level. As Frank already mentioned. Even an NPC Fighter is supposed to have +1 by 6th level, +2 by 10th, +3 by 14th. A PC is expected to have the same amounts to do so by 4th, 7th, and 9th respectively. DR 50/+3 is a fuckoff to non-melee types who might not have +3 weapons. A Barbarian/Fighter/Paladin/Ranger has had a +3 weapon for fucking ages by the time you see an Iron Golem (CR13).

Now, oppose that to 3.5 where you need a golfbag of various weapon materials and you've basically screwed the melee guys right in the asshole because now they have to spend their money on more kinds of weapons, and they're a lot more likely to get screwed by DR (DR 10/GOOD? No, DR 10/FUCKYOU!), whereas I can't remember ever, ever, ever being bothered by DR in a single 3.0 game I played as a fightan type.

And no, a gathering of guys who get taken down by single area damage effect are not a viable replacement for a bruiser polymorphed into a giant. They don't even win against children with alchemist's fire. Polymorph Other in 3.0 basically let the dumb meleers add free monster stats which kept them on the rails long enough to stay relevant for an extra few levels.

[Username17]

Erik covered the triviality of melee types bypassing DR in 3.0. I have nothing more to add.

That goes doubly when you take in account that 3.5 Power attack gives you more damage when two-handing (+2 per -1 to hit, whereas in 3.0 is always +1 damage per each -1 to hit), so I really don't understand where you're getting that uber-chargers were better in 3.0, since a 3.5 sword dude dishes more damage and has an easier time just overcoming DR with raw damage.

In 3.0 Rhino Hide gives double damage when charging, which adds in all your static bonuses again (including Power Attack). In 3.5, the armor mod gives 2d6 bonus damage at the end of the calculation. In 3.0 you could increase your static damage bonuses by a metric fuck tonne with pre-nerf Mantis Leap and Power Lunge. I had an 8th level charger that did 70 damage on a charge before rolling dice and before power attacking. And she was made with just the PHB, the DMG, Sword and Fist, and the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting. No prestige classes, no artifacts, no tiger amulets, no cheerleader mages, no obscure books, no special pleading. She just did enough damage to stay relevant by using the pre-nerf materials out of the basic warrior options book for 3rd edition. Because that is how things worked back then.

-Username17

[Ancient History]

Hmm, don't really want to derail this topic, but what about later editions of Earthdawn?

Jumped the shark and lost the thread.

[erik]

Hmm, don't really want to derail this topic, but what about later editions of Earthdawn?

Jumped the shark and lost the thread.

I think even first ed ED isn't as versatile and smooth as 3e D&D. I usually look in an RPG for how many distinct cool characters I can build. I like making characters almost as much as playing them. I'd say earth dawn has at least an order of magnitude less variety. Also it has windlings.

[Ancient History]

Quantity is not always a quality into itself. Earthdawn took the basic precepts of the game - classes, levels and leveling, magic items with ranked bonuses, Vancian spellcasting - and actually crafted a setting and system that worked together to realize those. It is, without argument, much more integrated than any edition of D&D, it has better fluff than any edition of D&D, and much more *flexible* than any edition of D&D, since there's lots of wiggle-room between Circles *by design*.

But no, it isn't as plug-and-play and friendly to shovelware as D&D 3.x.

[Lokathor]

Hmm, don't really want to derail this topic, but what about later editions of Earthdawn?

Jumped the shark and lost the thread.

Earthdawn 4e, despite only being a Player's Book and GM's Book, is actually a big step up from previous editions I think. You can use expansion stuff from older materials, it's compatible enough, but a lot of the fiddly bits in combat and talents got simplified in a good way.

[OgreBattle]

I feel like Project Orcus had the greatest potential to be the bestest edition of D&D but for whatever reason we got 4e instead.

[spongeknight]

I feel like Project Orcus had the greatest potential to be the bestest edition of D&D but for whatever reason we got 4e instead.

On the one hand, martials would have been Bo9S classes and casters would have been limited. On the other hand, we might have had Incarnates and Binders and Truenamers that were broken messes. I think it's safe to say Orcus was the "most promising" contender that might have still been terrible.

[Ice9]

So the 3.0 DR is better because it barely ever matters? That's dumb, better to just not have DR than "You must be this tall to ride DR" which can screw over warriors in several ways and is completely irrelevant when it doesn't do that.

Problems with it:
1) Amplifies the dependence on specific weapons. A 3.5 warrior type using a two-handed weapon can smash through most DR without too much trouble, even if that weapon is a boat oar or some shit. If they managed to get even a basic +1 weapon, then they're in pretty good shape. A 3.0 warrior without their +3 sword goes and cries in the corner, I guess.

2) Mandates a bunch of straight plusses. Which means either you don't get to have any interesting weapon properties, or you rely on a Cleric juicing you up with GMW every morning. What was that about being a caster's bitch again?

3) Boring. If everyone does have their appropriate weapons, then the DR is all meaningless and indistinguishable.


Secondly - no, a random 1st level hireling polymorphed into a Troll is not remotely the equivalent of a double-digit warrior PC polymorphed into one - or even not polymorphed, for that matter. There's definitely a break-even point where having a designated melee buff-holder is more useful than yet another caster. Like, 10 Wizards and a Barbarian is probably better than 11 Wizards. IDK off hand where the line would most often be.

[Username17]

Unclear. The evidence is somewhat against Tome of Magic classes having been in Orcus. Firstly Tome of Magic was a C team product and it is likely that those guys would have had no access to Orcus materials. Certainly the guy who claims credit for the Shadowcaster wasn't on the Orcus team.

Secondly, multiple people have said that Mearls repurposed a bunch of Orcus materials for Tome of Battle after he personally persuaded the group to terminate the project. No similar claims have been made for Tome of Magic.

But the really convincing evidence to me is that the claim was that Orcus got terminated because none of the eight classes had daily ability use limits. Which doesn't sound like anything in Tome of Magic.

So while Orcus would have gotten the bad touch from Andy Collins and his weird ideas about running everything through item slots and having only 8 classes, final destination, there's every reason to believe that it would be shadowcaster free. The Orcus druid might have been the Totemist though.

-Username17

[Username17]

Yes Ice9, 3.0 DR is better because it hardly ever matters. DR is a rule that makes things harder for Warriors and has virtually no effect on spell casters. If warriors were overpowered, DR not mattering would be a problem. Since the general consensus is that warriors are weaker than wizards, DR not mattering is a feature. Because fucking obviously.

3.5 DR matters a lot more often, which is a nerf to warriors. Since warriors are underpowered, all nerfs to them are bad no matter how flavorful they happen to be. Again, because fucking obviously.

-Username17

[erik]

I view 3.0 DR as you must be this tall to ride for CR and for characters who aren't primarily weapon users. You don't fight iron golems at level 8 because they have DR. Using CR to gate levels isn't dumb.

And not everybody will necessarily have adequate weapons. The fighting types should first because that's their thing. If you are fighting at the cusp of the CR limit then the fightan mans are probably the only people with adequate weapons and the casters are going to need to blow a high level slot to buff their next best warrior.

In 3.5 the focus seems to shift from level gating to minor attack ablation.

Now I'm agree that enhancement bonuses should have just been built in by level (and maybe class). But since they didn't do that in either the edition, here we are. And needing just one maxed weapon is much more affordable than needing a silver, a cold iron, admantine, good, evil and fuck knows what else.

[Ice9]

Since warriors are underpowered, all nerfs to them are bad no matter how flavorful they happen to be. Again, because fucking obviously.

If we're just judging by how good the Fighter has it, I guess 4E is the best edition?

Whether the warrior-type has it better in 3.0 or 3.5 depends on optimization level a bit, I guess. At a mid-optimized level, a lot of things are easier to get in 3.5: full attack on charge, power attack multipliers, out of combat healing, short-range teleportation and flight, Will-save salvaging, probably some others. And of course there's the Bo9S stuff, often helpful to mix in.

If we're talking low-op - I dunno; 3.0 might be better. Certainly it's better for the warrior who's in a party with generous casters, since many buffs last longer.