Why do you like DnD 3.5?

[Paganboy28]

It's a simple question, but why do some people love this and hate others?

What makes DnD 3.5 so great?

[Yuki Akuma]

I like it because I'm used to it. I can build a character to do pretty much whatever quickly and easily.

Other games may be more flexible, but I don't know them well enough to make up for it.

[Tyndmyr]

Options. It's a system with lots and lots of options.

[Temet Nosce]

It's a complex system with a wide variety of clearly differentiated rules for simulating an enormous number of things.

More simply put, it has a lot of distinct options.

[arguskos]

Options. It's a system with lots and lots of options.
This. The mechanical options I have are innumerable, and that's what I want from a system.

The other thing I really enjoy about the system is that it ISN'T balanced. That's just what I enjoy though, makes it feel more "real" to me. pleasedon'tstartafirewarplease

[Temet Nosce]

The other thing I really enjoy about the system is that it ISN'T balanced. That's just what I enjoy though, makes it feel more "real" to me. pleasedon'tstartafirewarplease

I consider this to be included in options. I don't really think you can have distinct options and be balanced, as there's no central method of measuring such things against each other.

[arguskos]

I consider this to be included in options. I don't really think you can have distinct options and be balanced, as there's no central method of measuring such things against each other.
That's the joy of it indeed! :smallbiggrin:

Shadowmagic vs. Psionics: uh... they're both pretty damn cool? There's no way to reasonably compare them, because they are so different. I like that greatly myself, and it's what I value in a system.

[SparkMandriller]

Because it's got so many problems that every two minutes people get in a fight over it, and I like watching people on the internet fight. You can laugh at some of the problems too. Multipurpose, that is.

[Natael]

I can't say so specifically that I like it a lot, but it is a useful system for running silly overly-high magic games. In general, 3.5 has a reasonable level of disbelief as long as you let it get to Tippified. Also, I like some of the adventures in it (namely red hand of doom, and I really don't want to have to convert it to GURPS).

I do kind of like combining things and finding class/prc combos to get silly ridiculous (silly, or powerful) effects.

[Starscream]

Options. It's a system with lots and lots of options.

This. And as for the balance issue, no system with that many options can possibly be balanced. With enough potential choices of races/classes/skills/feats/spells/items/PrCs/templates it is inevitable that some combinations are going to be better than others.

[Sinfire Titan]

A few reasons really.


Diviersity. There's just so many subsystems in it that I can easily make characters that are thematically similar, but mechanically different. 4E doesn't offer this for a few reasons. I hear other systems like GURPS do, but those systems just don't strike me as interesting.
Flavor. My favorite book is Magic of Incarnum, after all. I like it for the taste (because everyone loves Blue Raspberry).
Customization: Home Brew in 3.5 is fairly easy to make. I know other systems have this too, but again, those aren't my style.
Complexity. Making a character is a challenge for anyone, but in 3.5 it's actually fairly difficult to make a solid one. I enjoy testing out my builds. I appreciate systems that are easy to optimize, but I prefer the challenge more than anything else. Its a measure of system mastery.



I'm the kind of person who bought Bionicles, built them once, and then just started kit bashing until I made something that looked cool and was free-standing. After, I would take it apart and build something new. I like that in a game. If it happens to be ineffective, then I start over.

[AzazelSephiroth]

Options seems to be the winner. Yet I also know it better. I own alot of the books, I have read them and invested money, game time, real world time, and with so much "history" you can't help but love it- even when you have those moments of frustration:smallwink:

DM: What do you mean you have created an army of warforged artificers and they have been spending the last three months crafting magic items for you?!

PC: Well you said we had a year of extra-dimensional time and I thought hey why not!

[Zeta Kai]

I like options. Options are good. The players have options, the DM has options. 3E has tons & tons of options. It has so many options, in fact, that I seriously doubt there is a single person who has seriously sampled them all (& by that, IO mean played every race, every class, every PrC, taken every feat, cast every spell, used every magic item, used every variant rule, etc.)
It has an easy-to-learn central game mechanic. 1d20 + modifiers vs. an assigned DC. Easy-peasy, & it covers ~95% of all situations. After CharGen, you could run a game without even cracking a book, as long as you remember the core mechanic. Not every game has something so simple or elegant, & some games that do have so many bizarre exceptions that it's a pain to remember them all.
It's easy to homebrew new material for. Most of the game's mechanics are either laid bare for players to dissect, or they are so intuitive that it is self-evident how to emulate them with new 'brew. It's remarkably simple to make new races/classes/PrCs/feats/spells/domains/items/monsters/etc. I've 'brewed 'em all, & all you need is a good idea to build on. If you can imagine it, it can probably be homebrewed using existing systems. Many other systems are equally transparent, but 3E has an edge due to its myriad options (see above). That's good synergy for you.
It tried to be balanced, but it doesn't get hung up on it. The game presents itself as a potentially-balanced system, & although it fails to be so on many levels, the attempt in admirable, given the game's complexity. I consider this to be in the game's favor, because it doesn't sacrifice options & versatility on the altar of Unattainable Balance. Truly perfect balance is probably impossible to achieve; like the speed of light or absolute zero, you can get close, but you have to give up more & more to get there, & you'll never get all the way. The game sets up an expectation of balance, which helps rope in most players, but it gives them the freedom to break those self-imposed barriers if they wish. It's the best of both world, IMO.
The system is widespread, so almost everybody has some familiarity with it. The game even has popular derivative systems (Mutants & Masterminds, various D20s, NWN, etc.), expanding the common base even further. Finding players is easy, because the SRD is on the internet, there are still tons of third-party publishers making new material for it, & the books are now dirt-cheap. Long live the OGL.

I'm sure that there are other advantages, but those are the major ones that keep me coming back for more, loving a flawed system, warts & all.

[Oslecamo]

I'm the kind of person who bought Bionicles, built them once, and then just started kit bashing until I made something that looked cool and was free-standing. After, I would take it apart and build something new. I like that in a game. If it happens to be ineffective, then I start over.

It's actually even better, because you can even create your own crazy blocks if you're feeling something is missing!:smallbiggrin:

+1 for the options. Not only I have a butloads of splatbooks screaming to be used, there's plenty of interesting homebrew out there to keep me entertained for, well, the rest of my life.

Also screw perfect balance! If I wanted it I would play something created by Blizzard! In my roleplaing games I want to play in a world where certain options are better than others!

[sonofzeal]

1) Options - I can do just about anything with enough effort, and even if it's not as insanely flexible as GURPS or Risus, it's still pretty far down that path.

2) Structure - unlike GURPS or Risus, there's a solid base framework to work off of for how to advance. I like having the class/level foundation, even if it reduces options a little and isn't exactly realistic.

3) Ease of finding groups - it's still the most common system in my area, and that's a big selling point.

4) My own mastery of the system - I'm really comfortable with it at this point, the rules all come fluidly and naturally, and it doesn't take much effort to play. Working in a new system would take a lot more energy for the same gameplay result.

[The Dark Fiddler]

I like it because that's what I was introduced to first, and that's what I learned first, and that's what I'm familiar with and play now.

[Telonius]

It's breakable. The sloppiness of some of the editing leads to some truly hilarious situations that wouldn't occur in a more "perfect" system. I game in order to have fun. Funny situations = fun.

It's as easy to fix as it is to break. A few key rules changes will fix most of the really ridiculous balance issues.

[aje8]

1. Simulationist. There's a rule for everything, and (ignoring magic obviously) it makes quite a bit of sense. If you can imagine something, you can do it in DnD and there's probably a rule for it.

2. Tons of options. Other users described this well.

3. Everybody, everybody has played DnD. Ease of finding groups and players is important.

[Mushroom Ninja]

I like games with complex rules that give the player a huge number of options. D&D 3.5 fits this perfectly.

[ericgrau]

Options. It's a system with lots and lots of options.
And details, lots of details. Both its strength and weakness IMO. But I prefer it.

EDIT: And it seems many people are saying the same. Including the ninja above.

[Eldariel]

Obviously you've never played Starcraft with someone good, then. :smalltongue:

Uh, what? Isn't Starcraft like...the epitome of balance between equivalent players on a fair map? :smalltongue:

[ericgrau]

Warcraft 3 does it better. And when it became apparent that some races couldn't fulfill certain roles, giving a potential weakness, the expansion added new units to fill those holes. The heavy melee in particular are insanely well matched. I tabulated their stats vs. gold cost to give a rating between 0 and 1, and there's a slight difference in the 3rd decimal place. Not that I like this kind of "balance". I prefer variety.

[CockroachTeaParty]

Obviously you've never played Starcraft with someone good, then. :smalltongue:

EDIT: I like D&D's name. Reminds me of the fun times I had with AD&D.

"OH S***! How did he make 50 Zealots in two minutes??"

Anyway, I enjoy 3.5 because it is simulationist. I like my worlds to obey certain rules, and be able to render even insignificant commoners mechanically. Plus, 3rd edition lays all the formulas and tools out for enterprising DM's. 4th edition is loathe to give up its precious secrets. It's much more difficult to make new or custom monsters, and it's harder to 'acid test.'

The number of options, again I vouch for.

Also, personally, I enjoy just reading the books. Of course I'm never going to use the Apparatus of Kwalish, but it's interesting to read how it works, and try to fathom a use for it. My friends wonder how I know so much about the rules, and it's primarily because I simply read all the books, cover to cover, for pleasure in my spare time. It all rubs off on me, which leads to a mastery of the system when we actually play.

[Curmudgeon]

Most any class available each time you take a level. You only get that choice in 4th edition once. Then most of the time you get all the class features available at that level (with some exceptions, like the Ranger Combat Style choice). With 4E it's always a subset of what's available.

[Eldariel]

Warcraft 3 does it better. And when it became apparent that some races couldn't fulfill certain roles, giving a potential weakness, the expansion added new units to fill those holes. The heavy melee in particular are insanely well matched. I tabulated their stats vs. gold cost to give a rating between 0 and 1, and there's a slight difference in the 3rd decimal place. Not that I like this kind of "balance". I prefer variety.

Warcraft 3 actually has more balance problems. Mostly because of the hero system and the number of the races. Starcraft's balance doesn't come from identical stats, but good race design to match the races' abilities and different strategies against one another; no strategy is overwhelming, and each race's advantages counteract their weaknesses and good map offers about 50/50 in all MUs for each race combination, and practically every unit has a role (with the exception of the Scout, which just sucks; it's only used in some anti-Terran rushes and even those are undoable nowadays that Ran go early Goliath vs. Toss anyways).


WC3 screwed it up; Elves & Orc are way stronger than UD right now, with Humans falling somewhere in the middle. And the interracial problems are even bigger; Taurens see practically no competitive play, for example, and every race has a single correct hero for most MUs with the possible exception of Elves who have most Tavern-heroes along with Warden & DH as competitive options depending on the map, and sorta Humans who can sometimes benefit of MK first over AM first, especially against Blademaster or Death Knight (and there's the Pally First vs. UD).

Pure numbers don't unfortunately tell the whole story. Really, the principal issue is trying to balance 4 races; that's 16 MUs with only 4 variables. If you don't make all 4 identical, there are going to be problems and if you make them identical, it's pretty pointless to have 4 races in the first place.

[Oslecamo]

Obviously you've never played Starcraft with someone good, then. :smalltongue:


Please please explain. Starcraft is probably the most balanced RTS evar, and one of the most balanced complex games in history.

Sure a skilled player can pull out some crazy stunts, but if the other player is as skilled, he'll be able to counter. There's no auto-win button.(almost)Every unit has it's uses. The more skilled and adaptative player is the one who's going to walk out victorious 99.9% out of the time, not the one pulling out cheesy tricks.


And for the record, I do play now and then SC in ICcup, where the level of competition is basically cutthroat.

Warcraft III isn't as balanced, but it's still quite good, at least compared to some other RTS's out there.

No wonder Blizzard is taking so long to release SCII. They want to make sure it lives up to the first version, polishing every detail.

[Thespianus]

I like DnD because it's a sweet social activity that keeps me thinking about fun ways to develop my character in between sessions. The alone-time with the books is relaxing and gives good brain stimuli and when we're in the group playing the game, it's crazy fun! :)

Outside of the gaming group it's like an engineering puzzle, in the group it's all out fun and laughs. What's not to like? :) Soo many options.

[The Rose Dragon]

I'm so sorry I made a joking comment now. I didn't expect people to take something preceding a tongue-out smiley so seriously.

((Especially since the quoted comment was also jokingly made.))

[Korivan]

I love DnD as a whole because of the vast differences there can be between different games. Its not just do this, then that, then this again somewhere else...But whole new adventures with a ton of laughter and fun. Everyone on this forum and the countless others world-wide can dish out a good storie about what thier group has done.

About 3.5 specifically? That would be the vast amount of options with builds. Seriously, how many combinations of awsomness can you make with all the books out there? Don't know, just know I wanna try them all.

Another thing I like about it is the better consistency with rules and the simplicity in certain areas. I Like not having to deal with two seperat initiative numbers with casters.

lastly, the power.....:smallsigh:(drooling):smallsigh:

[Masaioh]

A few reasons really.


Diviersity. There's just so many subsystems in it that I can easily make characters that are thematically similar, but mechanically different. 4E doesn't offer this for a few reasons. I hear other systems like GURPS do, but those systems just don't strike me as interesting.
Flavor. My favorite book is Magic of Incarnum, after all. I like it for the taste (because everyone loves Blue Raspberry).
Customization: Home Brew in 3.5 is fairly easy to make. I know other systems have this too, but again, those aren't my style.
Complexity. Making a character is a challenge for anyone, but in 3.5 it's actually fairly difficult to make a solid one. I enjoy testing out my builds. I appreciate systems that are easy to optimize, but I prefer the challenge more than anything else. Its a measure of system mastery.



I'm the kind of person who bought Bionicles, built them once, and then just started kit bashing until I made something that looked cool and was free-standing. After, I would take it apart and build something new. I like that in a game. If it happens to be ineffective, then I start over.

Same here, even the part with Bionicles.

[Eldariel]

Mayhap I should address the OP too: I like D&D because I have yet to run into a character concept I couldn't realize in a satisfactory manner within the rules set, and because the process of realizing said concepts is so interesting.


Also, pardon my Starcraftness. :smallsmile:

[Saph]

About the 10th vote, but yeah . . . options. :) Along with versatility. I love having a character with about 20 spells in memory, 30 more on scrolls, and another 10 random effects from items. Means I pretty much never get bored no matter what we're doing.

[ericgrau]

Someone brought up the social aspect. That's awesome too. Even (especially?) when mechanics aren't involved at all, cracking jokes, interacting, etc. is a blast.

[Captain Six]

I once saw a game, took out a post-it note and wrote down a character with only six rolls and my own memory of the book. It took maybe four minutes. I was playing a game four minutes after I learned it existed. That is all.

[gdiddy]

I am a writer, I make worlds. Then my friends go into my worlds and make awesome things happen. They play gypsy halfling bards that duel wield water whips with custom feats like "Improved Greater Sunder Lady Garments".

Or a 4th level Sorceress that hid a knife under her pillow and then had the most insane grapple check imaginable against the 10th level wizard she was cheating on her husband with. This sorceress later multiclassed into Swashbuckler, because she was bored and everyone stopped letting her do magic.

Yes. I could do this in Gurps, The Pool, WHFRP, or Fudge. I've played them all, but each pose other problems. There is a standard. It's DnD. And Gygax is its prophet. My preferred version of this standard is 3.5, because its easy to find players and its mechanics are catered to what I already enjoy.

I don't care about combat mechanics, unless they're well roleplayed. And even better narrated. If someone is cheesy, there are bigger, cheesier fish. If someone goes batman-god-tippy, they squirt out of the universe like a watermelon seed. In the world I build, there are rules.

3.5, as proponents of 4E love to point out, is a world building device. I build worlds in it, and I go into other people's worlds with it. I don't give a flying hoot about squares, turns, rounds, encounters, or balance.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

I like AD&D, and first fell in love with it, because of all the quirks that are uniquely D&D: Vancian casting, alignment, the various subsystems, the official settings, etc. 3e takes all that wackiness, the wonderful feel, the ability to whip up homebrew, and the like, and adds in some heavy-duty customizability and options and a dash of simulationism.

[Matthew]

I like the grid based tactical combat aspect, and the relative simplicity of the moving parts.

[TelemontTanthul]

Two words: Massive Customization

Five words: As opposed to 4E

One Smiley: :smallbiggrin:

[tcrudisi]

I used to love being sneaky like a Rogue and manipulating people in the different ways that an Enchanter, Illusionist, or Bard can do. Then the Beguiler came out. In my next-to-last 3.5 game, I actually got to play one. I broke the game.

Then in my last game, someone created Pun-Pun. Sure, sure, "it's supposed to be a thought process," except it wasn't this time. Even worse, the dude was a newbie to 3.5 and just found the build when he was looking for help to create a character.

After that, I realized that balance is far, far more important to me. So I switched to 4e and have since absolutely loved the balance and team-work. We always tried to do good teamwork in 3.5, but that usually ended up with one person playing a broken character and the rest of us supporting him.

So I guess I'll say that the thing I like best about 3.5 are some of the memories. I had some fun times with it, but overall I am having a much better time with the new edition. I can understand why some people haven't switched though -- I still play old WoD and haven't switched to the new yet.

[bosssmiley]

Because it's a whore of a system. With enough blandishment it will be anything you want it to be (except possibly "Call of Cthulhu"...) :smallamused:

Munchkin power worship? Just add optimisation/splatbook abuse to taste.
Rocket Tag fantasy superheroes? Standard high-level play.
Gritty classic pulp heroes? Low-level play, or E6 it.

For all its flaws as written the OGL/SRD is also a handy gaming lingua franca.

[Kaiyanwang]

1) Options.

2) Sub-systems. Each Class is sort of a mini-game

3) Options.

4) Diversity of campaign you can built. Magic and Mundane things different. And UA is just more.

5) Options.

6) Flavour/s. Since is a system that existed in between AD&D and 4th edition, you can feel the evolution of flavour in it.

7) Options

Even if I recognize the limits and I sometimes whine about them, Is my fav edition of D&D. I really love and enjoy it.

[Ozymandias9]

I think of everything between OD&D and 3.5 as more or less the same game, merely balanced for different purposes and tuned to different levels of sophistication and refinement. While other editions might excel at certain aspects of the game, 3.X is the most easily customizable and the most polished/refined.

The drawback is that the extent of customization allows significant power-gaming. Overall though, I still find it generally superior to 2nd and the earlier games.

[Zaq]

I've often wondered this myself. 3.5 is a pile of problems spread across six hundred books that usually ends up at odds with itself... but oh, how I love it anyway.

I think it's because I really enjoy building strategies. In no particular order, here are some of my favorite games from the past ten years or so:


Magi-Nation (the card game, and to a much lesser extent the video game). Besides being my favorite game ever for so many reasons, I love the way you can explore and make nearly any strategy possible. ("Did you just make a Cald burn deck with no spells?! How the hell did you do that?! And why am I so very, very dead?!") I love how about half the game is setting up your deck, then half the game is actually playing. (No deck plays itself in MND. Well, no good deck.) I can (and did) spend hours upon hours brainstorming, mentally testing, physically testing, tweaking, and perfecting decks... and have it be just as much fun to actually play the game. What's not to love? Besides the fact that II went bankrupt a few years ago. MAGI-NATION WILL ALWAYS LIVE IN MY HEART.

There's the Mega Man Battle Network series, in particular the third installment. Same thing: you have a lot of options and so, so many ways to work them into a coherent strategy, and the game is chock full of unexpected combos and things that don't look like they should work until they kill you. The gameplay is solid, and you can totally change the way the game plays by changing your strategy. (The Starforce games fall a little flat on this end... most decks you make tend to feel pretty similar there. I still play 'em, though.)

I was into Ragnarok Online for a while. Again, there's a million ways to play your character there... or at least, there purport to be. (There's not that many VIABLE ways to play, sadly.) Do you know when I quit? I quit when I realized I had way more fun thinking about the game than I did playing it.

Guild Wars was my online crack of choice for two or three years. Have you noticed a pattern yet? Six million options, most of them actually workable. Once again, I loved to fiddle with assumptions and really go beyond what people expected. (My spear-throwing Mesmer did as much damage as a spear-throwing Paragon or arguably even more, and could interrupt to boot. I also had a Mesmer build that could run chests in the palace in Cantha. I like Mesmers.) Making new strategies was fun, playing new strategies was just as fun, and it was a grand time overall. The only reason I'm not still playing is because I don't have the willpower to play in moderation. I either had to quit and have a social life or keep playing and become a shut-in.

I'm also fond of the Final Fantasy Tactics series. It's not quite on par with some of the other games here, but the same thing applies. You can try out many different strategies, and many of them will work. If you want to go in a totally different direction, you can be just as effective, and the game totally changes. I really respect that.

With a gaming history like that, how could I NOT love 3.5? There's just so much to explore. You can do things that everyone expects, you can do things that everyone expects in ways that they totally don't expect, or you can do things that no one saw coming in the first place. All of these can be fun and useful characters. Furthermore, the choices you make when you're designing your character really change how you play the game. (A Dragonfire Adept does NOT have the same game perspective as an Incarnate, who does NOT have the same game perspective as a Warblade.) I also really like that you can make characters in both directions... that is, from concept to mechanics or vice versa. You can say "hmm, how can I represent Inspector Gadget?" (answer: Warforged DFA with heavy refluffing), or you can say "Huh, I never really noticed what Netherese Battle Curse is capable of. I wonder what kind of character I can make that uses it well." Either of these strategies will (or can) give you a perfectly useful character who is a valuable member of the party.

Then, after you're done making your character, you get to play. You get to see your strategies unfold. You get to see your expectations get challenged. You get to notice new things you wouldn't have beforehand. You get to see how well you can defend your tactics from the unexpected. You get to see how well you can improvise. And you get to see how your character really acts in a genuine roleplay situation.

3.5 has a HELL of a lot of problems. (In 3.5, balance is just what you take so that the wizard doesn't own you with a 1st level spell.) It can involve a LOT of bookkeeping. (For a relatively extreme example, check out the Druid. You need to juggle your stats, your pet's stats, your wild shaped stats, your summons' stats, and the entirety of the Druid spell list, since you're a prepared divine caster who knows the entire list.) It can take forever to build a character if you want to make things complex. If your GM doesn't use the optional retraining rules, a false step can have really unpleasant consequences. And you always have to gauge yourself against your partymates so you don't overshadow them, and so that you're not overshadowed by them. Then some jackass tries to Overrun (WHY?!) and you have to spend twenty minutes interpreting the rules. But you know what? I love it anyway.

So I guess this is the same "options" answer everyone has given, but I think there's more to it than that. I'd say that it's the fact that there's so much strategy to explore, on so many levels of play, that makes it the most appealing to me.

[oxybe]

i like it for the same reason i dislike it:

the fiddly bits.

sometimes they're fun when you pile them up correctly, sometimes they're just piled in the way.

[Paganboy28]

Thing that I dislike about DnD 3.5....

1) The level-based progression. I prefer free-flow. If I want to spend points in being better at X then I can do it.

2) Min-maxing. With so many options and such its open to abuse. And why be anything other than a full level caster?

3) Games where the sole objective seems to be see how many broken rules or loopholes you can exploit and get one over on the Gm or rest of the party.

[Jayabalard]

Thing that I dislike about DnD 3.5....Isn't that kind of... the opposite of the topic?