Review - Dungeons & Dragons 3rd Edition
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 27 ก.ย. 2024
- Overview, review, and history of 3rd Edition Dungeons & Dragons, published by Wizards of the Coast from 2000 to 2007.
Affiliate link: www.drivethrur...
Music:
Highland Song by Alexander Nakarada | www.serpentsou...
Music promoted by www.free-stock...
Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)
creativecommon....
Without the 3RD edition, the OGL, D20 license. We wouldn’t have gotten the book of erotic fantasies back in the day. Can you imagine playing dungeons and dragons 3.5 and Pathfinder without BOEF?
🤣
I enjoy 3.5 dnd . Still running games.
That's the beauty of book-based games. The company printing them could go down in flames tomorrow - but those books will still be right there for us to play with.
I remember an entire long shelf Barnes and Noble. If I needed something outside PHB I'd visit that row lol
If it had everything, it would have been long indeed!
I enjoy the (more basic?) versions of 3rd edition D&D used in the computer games Icewind Dale 2 and Neverwinter Nights. 😀
Did you ever play the Temple of Elemental Evil computer game?
There are not more basic, you just have a computer doing all the math. I say this as 3.5 player.
You may have a point though since not all of the infinite sources books are allowed and magic is weaker in videogames.
My first game was with 3e, but 3.5 was the meat of my experience for years. You are absolutely not joking when you say there is a flood of material. These days, I have picked up a tidy portion of the hardcover books over the years to collect them. Of all the editions I have collected books for, 3e/3.5e are my favorites. The work they put into making their books have that "mystical tome" facade is amazing, and they look incredible on the shelf.
They definitely do have gorgeous covers. Probably my favourite D&D edition from that aspect.
3.5 is my favorite version of DnD.
Played it exclusively for a dozen years. My big complaint is that 3.5
didn't get a long enough run. After dropping thousands dollars I believe the change was just too quick. I agree with you on Fourth edition.
Even including 3.0, 3E is one of the shortest-lived versions. At least if you wanted to stick with 3.5 in a published works sort of way, Pathfinder is 99.999% compatible. Or was? I haven't looked at Pathfinder 2nd.
If you include Pathfinder, and everyone should, 3.5 ended when Pathfinder 2E started.
So it was a good long run
this was my favourite edition, played AD&D, 2nd ed, BECMI. This was always the easiest for me to grasp, so could focus on playing rather than checking rules
Making it a cohesive system across the board, with modifiers you could calculate rather than have to look up, certainly helped.
I honestly think almost all editions of D&D start breaking down at about Level 10, for the simple fact that bonuses start to outweigh the die roll. At a simple +11 to hit, the modifier now means more than average result of a d20 roll, 10.5. Thus you to plan for hyper specialized builds, and it starts making other party members superfluous to tasks. “Search for a trap? Only the rogue could possibly get a DC 35. Hit the Dragon? Hope you have a +20 to reasonably hit a AC 30.
Lower level play is more democratic, everyone can contribute, the wizard can bop goblins on the head with his staff, the fighter could find a trap, etc. An outside the box creative solutions could be more effective than one of the wizard’s limited spells.Low level adventures need to live by their wits, not just bonuses stacked on bonuses.
No disagreement on that by me. Some editions do high level better than others - none of them do it particularly well. Inevitably, they break down into being superhero games.
My first experience with dungeons and dragons was a gameday held by Strange Games in Rugby, there was about 20 of us and they gave us all premade character sheets and sent us through 3.5's Tomb of Horrors. Not a single person survived, not even my Half-Elven Rogue and I was hooked from that moment on.
Whilst I see the flaws of the 3.5 system and think other editions of the game have been better in certain ways, 3.5 always holds a special place in my heart.
I personally see 3.5 as a more in-depth version of 5th edition, without the bounded accuracy and find that the game balance is much better than 5e, especially since 5e breaks down once you go above 6th level.
Great Video, looking forward to seeing what you have to say about 4th edition which is the edition me and my friends mainly played growing up.
Interesting... The 3E iteration of Tomb of Horrors is, theoretically, more survivable than its original incarnation - fewer "save or die" moments, at least. As for viewing 3E as a more in-depth version of 5E, I view 5E as a simplification of 3E :) Same thing, with a more linear timeline. 3E is also a more complex and flexible version than the editions that came before it - by nicking elements of Rolemaster.
Don't expect me to be overly kind to 4E... Although I do try to keep my videos balanced!
Anyway... Rugby's not far from me. How did the masts do in this year's storms?
@@WillyMuffinUK oh i'm not sure, haven't been to Rugby for many years. I mainly play in Daventry now, at Battlefield Hobbies.
Should point out that the lawsuit over Dangerous Journeys had nothing to do with AD&D. TSR was claiming that Gary Gygax wrote the rules while still employed at TSR and therefore it was their intellectual property. The game itself couldn't be any more different from AD&D. It was hard to believe it was from Gary.
Yes - all told, not TSRs best moment.
Fantastic video on the edition! Thank you!
Thank-you - glad you enjoyed it 🙂
I remember buying the brand new 3rd Edition books when they came out. Shortly later I sold my 2nd Edition books, only to later find that I loathed the 3rd Edition rules. 3rd Edition felt like it was designed more as a set of game mechanics for computer games then for actual pen and paper RPGs. Today, I've managed to rebuild most of my 2nd Edition collecting, although I've swapped out some things for others. I still prefer 2nd Edition for its more grounded level/power progression compared to the later editions, and its more DM-centric rule set.
Yeah - very consistent mathematically, but with a lot of the charm ripped out. The lesson is - don't sell your old stuff! At least, not until you're a few years in and are absolutely sure...
@@WillyMuffinUK Oh, indeed. I sorely regretted the rash decision. Today I have the important bits, Player's Handbook, Dungeon Master Guide, Tome of Magic, Monstrous Manual as well as the Arms & Equipment Guide. In addition, I've grabbed the Forgotten Realms boxed set and "Adventures" sourcebook, since I quite like that setting. I've read some of the books, as well as the fact that Forgotten Realms was the setting for a major part of the computer adaptations, such as Eye of the Beholder, Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dale etc. And these games were major influences on me growing up.
@@rebeccaschade3987 Play the Gold Box series! It's Realms, not as pretty as Baldur's Gate etc. (older...), but the whole series is fun.
Fantastic history, Ian. All your role-playing work is fantastic. I wish you were on social media so we could interact with you directly and if you ever and set up a Patreon page I’ll certainly become a member five seconds later.
Thank-you! Along Patreon lines, I have set up something on Subscribestar ( www.subscribestar.com/willy-muffin ), just a sort of minimalist thing until I can figure out things that would make being a subscriber/Patreon/whatever worthwhile over watching for free on TH-cam. I don't believe in something for nothing!
I avoid Twitter like the plague. Facebook is facebook.com/ian.malcomson/ - although don't expect a massive amount of RPG stuff there. But I'm generally happy for anyone to contact me there, if they bear in mind that my li'l life is a very full one - and most of it doesn't revolve around the socials :)
@@WillyMuffinUK It took me five seconds. :-)
@@patrickmullen9485 Thank-you :)
@@WillyMuffinUK I heard from content creator Lee Camp that Patreon takes a bigger cut than some other similar websites. Maybe Subscribestar takes a smaller cut?
@@SimonAshworthWood I've no idea! This is new territory for me!
An outstanding overview, sir!
There were a couple of variants that attempted to reign in the late stage problems with unbalanced character "builds" and bloated stat blocks: first was E6, which capped the character level at 6, with some further limited development. The other one, 3.y by Blacky Blackball, was intended to be used with the original 3.0 rules, positing that those rules were fine and that 3.5 broke game balance.
I've (re)acquired a set of 3.0 rules to try out 3.y, but have been too busy running other things lately to get it on the table.
Thank-you!
I'd argue that 3.5 fixed a lot of the balance and inconsistencies, but the main issue of higher level balance remains the same across all versions of D&D - sooner or later, you're leaving the fantasy genre and entering a superhero one. 3E just accelerates the process by being more open to min/maxer building.
It is, of course, not a problem if superheroic characters are your thing!
To this day I wonder how much of the decision to create the OGL stems from WotC's experience with Palladium pursuing legal action against them over the Primal Order books. That affair could easily have put the company out of business before Magic came along and made them into an unstoppable juggernaut. I still recall their newsletter (printed, no less) asking for donations to their legal defense fund, and Pete got $5 out of me for it. Did that close call and Kevin's dog-in-the-manger attitude about third party support for his games leave such a bad taste in Adkison's mouth that he decided to do his best to see it never happened with his shiny new RPG? Maybe contributed to by memories of TSR's own litigious behavior?
Regardless, the d20 engine and OGL were two of the most important developments in gaming and have changed the roleplaying industry forever. Between that and Magic WotC's place in history is firmly established.
It could very well have been influenced by it, but perhaps more by a desire to "legitimise" the practice of creating 3rd party D&D content and gaining some ownership over that. It probably stems more from TSR's attitude - look at the whole Mayfair affair over Role Aids, and the GDW Dangerous Journeys issue.
@@WillyMuffinUK True, those were also factors. I suspect the main push for it was financial, though. WotC knew they wanted 3.0 to be a success, and they knew having a lot of stuff out there for the game fast would help drive that - but why take the risk of creating everything themselves when they could get other companies to do a lot of that for them? Sure, it was sharing the wealth and all, but that just helped the whole RPG end of the industry (which CCGs had hurt badly) and at the end of the day the official D&D stuff would always have an edge in the market just due to brand recognition. There were a few companies that rushed into publishing d20 material and failed, but for the most part it was safe bet throughout the Oughts. D20 companies came out far better than the legions of publishers who'd jumped into the CCG market in the Nineties trying to ride the Magic wave.
@@richmcgee434 How many CCGs are still around? Magic... V:tES (just)... Pokémon... That's about it. Then again, I never really got into any of them (V:tES mostly).
On the financials - definitely some truth there. I'm pretty sure I remember Ryan Dancey at the time saying the D20 licence allowed 3rd parties to produce products that WotC wouldn't find profitable enough, and that whole "requires 3rd Edition PHB" label the D20 licence required probably helped to shift a shed ton of PHBs.
I have played DnD since 1979. Today I still run 3-3.5 games. I still believe that the 3-3.5 era was by far the best version of DnD. It had the most options, the most options in both worlds, publishers, data, you name it. The ability to lay on templates on basic races you name it. And the original OGL that allowed ANYBODY to publish their ideas was great. I have around 150 hardcover books for 3-3.5, let alone the previous versions, along with that many or more soft covers. While it was certainly more complicated, and at times broken, a good DM and group had homebrew rules to address anything that came up. I tried 5e, but find it a watered down version of 3 and further, I find it kind of insulting to previous version players. I don't know of ANY player who was ever insulted by the word "race". I never encountered a single player who was concerned on how certain groups in the fantasy game were oppressed or marginalized etc. That is strictly a construct of the current political philosophy of victimhood of anybody not white or not male. I have ran games with many different ethnicities since there is only 1 sentient race that currently plays DnD on this planet. I have ran games with men, women, straight and gay. One thing that never came up was sexuality or how the fantasy game oppressed various groups. IT WAS A GAME. We all played, we all laughed and we all got along. Which is MUCH more important than what the current version of DnD is trying to do by showing us that Orcs, which I always looked at as evil monsters of fantasy and an amalgamation of folk beliefs of human history and literature, are apparently Mexican and have lots of gay members as well. Talk about racist........
Well... OK!
3e was my introduction to D&D back in 2000. We only had the PHB so we were trying to modify a bunch of 2e monsters and stats to 3e with varying degrees of success. So many great memories of this awesome edition and I still have the large stack of rule books to this day.
Oh, one thing, at 20:47, you said a STR score of 16 gives you +2, supposed to be +3 lol.
Do I? Been a while... Yes, should be +3 - the general point is that virtually everything could be calculated (16/2, - 5, =3).
I haven't played 5th edition yet. 3 and 3.5 (Also Pathfinder.) are my least favorite editions. I've always considered these editions, as the slow moving editions. That's just me though. Thanks for the share!!
I do sometimes think older editions run faster because half the rules aren't used. I mean, rounds by segments! But yeah, there's a lot more that is codified in 3E.
@@WillyMuffinUK True that.
I think in particular I loved 3.x for the extensive Forgotten Realms content. There was so much to explore. I also really loved the Complete series and the Draconomicon. Beyond that I mostly made use of the many monster books, though use may be less appropriate than 'I read them and imagined using them'. The many, many classes were always neat but there was always a lot of planning your character from level 1 but not necessarily getting there.
Heh - so many books endee up in the "read but not played" pile. Especially during the D20 bubble era.
Lot of good stuff for FR during 3E - with you there.
I much prefer a more homogeneous than planned form of character progression. That way, characters evolve to become the sum of their experiences, rather than being on a pre-planned path of character options. It's also a reason why I think too many classes don't lead to more options, but to a dilution of the game that ultimately limits choice in play. To that end, I tend to go for few classes (in games I play that use classes...) with many options, rather than many classes with those options baked-in.
Different strokes, though!
@WillyMuffinUK oh, I agree. I prefer more natural evolution. But I feel 3.x really encouraged players to plan their levels ahead of time. After all, prestige classes were the best, but they usually required a feat and multiple skills; not just levels in a class. It encouraged over planning.
@@EvilGuacamoleGaming No argument from me there. It's almost forced, with feat trees and, as you say, prestige classes.
@@WillyMuffinUK I don't mind feat trees too much, at least if there aren't a lot of requirements other than a previous feat. It's also better when we talk about fighters who had them all the time, but they were too infrequent for other classes for this to be a good design choice for them.
As a 3rd edition player not so sure about suggesting epic level handbook and savage species.
Well... The video being my opinion, those two were the best non-core books released for it! (Counting only WotC official releases).
Reasonings:
Epic Level Handbook - caveat (also in video) "if high level is your thing". I loved the transition of BECMI, and the ELH fulfilled a similar role for the upper end of 3E levels.
Savage Species - immensely useful for both players that want to wander off the beaten path of the PHB, and for DMs wanting to add some extra toppings to their encounters. It also hearkens back to the "monster class" ideas from the GAZ and PC supplements from BECMI.
By all means, add your own suggestions and reasonings! Discussion is welcomed :)
@@WillyMuffinUK The idea is great, for both of the books, if there were two books I would like to work in 3rd edition I would pick these two. ELH has too many failings as does savage species, but their aim is what is beautiful. I feel that is true for the whole of 3rd edition, its the only edition that tried to balance all the classes with the same level progression without gimping spells or downgrading magic items. It has CR's and costs for magic items and wealth by level, formulas for everything. It has by far the most options and customization and tries for a higher level of verisimilitude than any edition of dnd .
It implicity promises everything will work and even though it doesn't succeed, this promise is what keeps me playing it and tinkering with it.
As an aside I agree with the suggestion of the compendiums.
@@vermisgood It is definitely a tinkerer's game! From that perspective, it is right up there with Traveller, RuneQuest, and Rolemaster - along with D&D3, the four games that offer referees the most far-ranging toolkits to play with.
@@WillyMuffinUK You really think so? What about GURPS or Hero System or Savage Worlds? Those are all games *built* to be tookits from the ground up. Surely they outshine any of those four other RPGs? (Although I'd add the BRP engine that RQ runs on as being at least as versatile a toolkit as GURPS, etc.)
@@richmcgee434 Savage Worlds I have no experience with at all, other than reading through the SW Lankhmar material and... Well, to be blunt, dismissing it. GURPS I have some experience with, and do like elements of it - especially some of the source books. But I do firmly put it behind those I note as, again being blunt, the quality of its system doesn't match the quality its supplements.
As I've noted elsewhere, my experience of Hero is largely limited to Champions. I think it works well for superheroes, but is way too "completiet". I would absolutely hate to try and purpose it for anything else. Hoisted on its own petard, or something like that.
I started with 3.5. and after playing it for about 20 years i think the best way to think of the version is to consider it a gigantic toolbox. it's got all the tools you need; but not all the tools you may want to use. If you're expanding out of the core content; then I believe he best way to use it is to curate your content and build yourself a "campaign bible" with all the options you want to use all rolled up into one location for ease of referencing. Since you're probably going to be cherry-picking out of a variety of supplements anyway you might as well write them down all in one place so you don't need a pile of books at your table (God help you if you're a traveling DM). It's ALOT of work; yes. but it's worth doing to make the expanded game system more playable.
Not a bad way to do it. Saves trying to reference a vast library!
Vampire the eternal struggle. Still the best multiplayer cardgame with a fantasy/scifi/horror/whatever theme. Hope the re-release gets it spreading again!
I agree. I tried a few of them, including ones associated with favourite games of mine - such as the BattleTech and Middle-Earth CCGs - and Magic. But for some reason, Only Jyhad/Eternal Struggle caught me.
Last time I looked, the POD re-do of V:TES isn't properly supported in the UK yet. But we'll see. There are some interesting sets in there. The 5th Edition looks interesting, but again hasn't really made it across the pond.
Americans get all of the nice toys!!
@@WillyMuffinUK Actually, Hugh, the CEO of Black Chantry (the game republisher) is british! :)
@@JJM-jh9oh He needs to do better in getting it more widely distributed out here, in that case!!
I’m happy for you that you enjoy that game. The way I prefer to deal with vampires is to slay them - in D&D.
Garlic necklaces with a holy symbol pendant, garlic breath from garlic in every meal, wooden arrows & wooden crossbow bolts (long distance wooden stakes), yep, they’re my thing. 😎
@@SimonAshworthWood :D Oh, you need introducing to Van Richten's Guide to Vampires!
Good catch, Monte Cook re. Rolemaster. I liked the Rolemaster mechanics and I.C.E. Middle-Earth campaign modules.
Me too. You can catch Rolemaster videos here on my channel somewhere. MERP will be arriving at some point. The attention to detail and sheer beauty of the mapping in MERP is still, to me, a high watermark in role-playing.
Options ain't a bad thing at all. One thing I did notice 3.5e trimmed the fat on lazy game masters, specifically to damn lazy to prepare, read and be creative.
When I was running the system all those Options indeed help me beyond my expectation. Opinions don't really matter 3rd edition is by far the superior from the other editions. Like I said the system got rid of lazy game masters. 4th and 5th edition is tailored for the lazy and skirmish.
There is a lot of subjectivity in there!
This is so informative! Consider me subscribed.
Thank-you 🙂
That was incredible. Thank you! 👊🏻
Thank-you, and you're welcome!
I'm not very fond of 3E, however without the OGL, the OSR movement wouldn't exist in the same form it is today if at all.
Very true. Love or hate 3E, it enabled some good things to happen.
I found 3rd Edition to be completely unrecognizable in terms of its feel. Strangely some mechanics were superficially similar to AD&D (you rolled saving throws, there was something called armour class etc.) but the scale, scope and texture of the game had transformed utterly. It is interest to hear about the Rolemaster connection with Monte Cook… that likely explains a lot of the mutation. It was a sad end for AD&D, which killed my interest in RPGs for years until I finally realized, comically many years later, that I could just keep playing AD&D… Thankfully, I had kept my old TSR books! The discussion on play is interesting… I only played 3e once or twice when it first came out (at promo events held at my FLGS), so I never saw high level play. Your explanations really make clear something that was commonly said about 3e, specifically that player-characters became incredibly powerful at high level and impossible to challenge. Interestingly, this is true in AD&D but for entirely different reasons. High level AD&D characters become difficult to challenge mainly because of their magic items and spells, both of which the DM can control in the game (just don't drop a scroll with Stoneskin or Timestop in the treasure, or a +5 suit of plate armor). In 3e, it seems like the DM has no control over player-character power, as it comes directly from the players' own choices and inbuilt abilities during level advancement.
Yes, 3E very much buys into the "build a character" mode of the min/maxer.
And I totally understand the bubble you describe. "They're changing the game!" is a cry many send up, often with little realisation that those books, right there on the shelf - they're still going to work, y'know.
I played 3rd edition off and on for a couple years. I never liked DM'ing it. I felt it was too complex; however my players really liked it because of the feats. Years later I tossed it in the trash because I couldn't give it away when moving. I still have 1st and 2nd edition on my shelf and prefer the 1st. Also have Castles & Crusades which is really what AD&D might have become had Gary Gygax stayed at the helm. I know he had some influence on the development of C&C.
@@azcoder That's not necessarily a good thing... Yes, C&C has a lot of 1st Ed feel - and don't get me wrong here, I do like 1st Ed. But compared to 3E, 1st (and 2nd, and Basic) are systemic messes. Perhaps that's part of their charm. 3E is more codified and consistent (and, yes, complex). But yes, very different game from 1st and 2nd.
Literally this.
This, to me, was a game called D&D in name only.
2E/2.5 was the last of the Gygax DNA.
4e is, in my personal opinion, the best edition of D&D, barely edging out the RC.
Personally, I think 4E missed the mark by a long way. However, it does have some redeeming qualities. Both of these will be explored!
great video
Thank-you 🙂
Too top heavy, too rules defined, too crunchy and granular. Everything is super defined. It felt like handholding too me. Nothing is left up to options or intepretation. I know a DM can change anything, but the generation who adopted 3/3.5 seemed to fully embrace the rules and only the rules. Rules lawyers abound!
On the flipside the OGL is great. Well, almost wasn't, but we'll see how that shakes out.
Again, great review even if I'm not a fan of the system. I am really enjoying your channel.
I think I mention in the video that, to me, 3E felt like a Rolemaster lite - and I think the involvement of Monte Cook as a lead had a lot to do with that. However, I was part of the playtest for it, and...
Well, I like Rolemaster and crunch. A fair bit of 3E evolved from the Skills & Powers 2nd Ed. books, some of which I also adopted at the time. Personally, I do think a 3E should have stuck to evolving 2nd Ed, with those optional rules for skills and customising classes kept as part of a separate line of non-core books. But, at the end of the day, WotC probably felt that they needed to make their mark with this IP they'd paid a fair whack for.
Generally though... yeah, 3E is a "Monte brings his experience with Iron Crown to D&D" vehicle. I like it, but as a different gaming experience to Basic and 1st/2nd AD&D (which also have their own flavours of game experience between themselves).
All these 3rd edition review vids being being pushed on youtube now... Proof that the game does not need new edition books, just reprint the classics, WotC.
They do! Via DriveThruRPG - pretty much the entire back-catalog in PDF and/or POD.
Game balance was horribly broken in 1e and 2e at around level 12. I am not sure what TSR was thinking as by the 1990's or even before characters should have been 20th level or higher after all that time. At times we played 60 hours a week, then down to 8 hours a week. At those rates in 2 years you should be 20th level.
Why? The level scaling was completely different. Yes, I admit OD&D and 1st were broken at high levels. 2nd fixed some, but not all, of that. But the original premise of the game didn't conceive of the levels it later accommodated. 1st should have overhauled the level scaling from OD&D, but didn't.
Anyway, rambling a bit, because I'm not entirely sure what your point is!
@@WillyMuffinUK Didn't conceive of it? What idiot didn't know level 20's would be running around in 2 years? Gary might have played about 8 hours a week he had a company to run, and it took years to make levels. What happens when people play 40 to 60 hours a week? I say get better at math! I still feel TSR missed an easy mark early on. Product came out painfully slow. You got the sole game in town. Make some money, jeez. Get some product out the door. It took TSR years to release modules, expansions, and books. The level scaling should have been immediately corrected, and a dozen modules and expansions released within the first two years.
You end the first part as "17:30" sprawling mess of options. Its up to the DM to middigate that to use what works and what don't to induce a smooth mechanic within game play and role play.
Of course - but my counter to that is the effort required to mitigate would not be needed if it wasn't a sprawling mess in the first place.
@@WillyMuffinUK Well one could see it as a glass full of options or a glass overflowing with problems. I and the type of people I enjoy playing with seem to enjoy the plethera of options that I allow which is afforded to by the sheer cornucopia of options thein. I suppose its all a matter of perspective.
Dungeons and Dragons BEST edition
Subjective views are the best ones 😉
Thanks Iain, I'm enjoying these videos a lot. I play and Dm for a group that been continuous since the late 80's and we've always tried to stay with the current D&D Rule Meta. Including a short live time with 4e. However for the last 10+years we've played Pathfinder exclusively (we still call it D&D) but now, in part due to your AD&D 2e review we are stepping back to the that edition. As for 5e like yourself with 4e i bought it, read it and shelved it, maybe ill start and convert the adventures to 2e. Thanks again and keep up the good work.
Thank-you! It's interesting to hear how many people are returning to, shall we say, simpler times. There must be an element of nostalgia there, but the trend seems to point away from it being that simple an answer. It's not a flood, obviously. But - and I discount people that stayed with their preferred editions here, with all due respect to them - the trickle back to earlier editions, even people relatively new to D&D that are picking up earlier editions in lieu of the current game, is not insignificant.
I'm not judging it right, wrong, good, or bad. RPGs are a creative medium, and everyone needs to pick the one that best fits their creativity. But it could be something the likes of WotC might want to take note of!
I still DM a AD&D 2e game and play in a 5e game.
"bought it, read it and shelved it"
Best edition. Also: Eberron
Different strokes for different folks 🙂
Personally I thought 3E/3.5/Pathfinder were a serious upgrade to DnD.
The sticking point for me, has always been AC.
I discovered alternative games, early in my gaming life. Cyberpunk, GURPS, Mekton, Battletech, 40K, DC Universe.
The list is long, and almost universally, none had anything like AC. Except GURPS which had a deflection bonus to your defense rating.
I found damage absorption more realistic and made armor both more and less important.
If I chose to play the heavily armored brute. Do I need a super high dex?
Do I want to play the quick and agile archer, with light armor?
I also generally hate character levels. Though they work great in 3/3.5.
Pathfinder I find did a great job.
I am inclined to agree on the AC point. It is just too abstract. Pretty much every other RPG I play does a far better job of armour than D&D. But... it is what it is. In such an abstract system, one more abstraction can't hurt too much!
Options, more options and even more options? that's why I'm starting to collect 3.X edition books 8)
You're going to need a bigger game bag 😉
"Options... options... and more options." You say it as if it's a bad thing. :) I played 1.0 thru 3.5 and with the fantastic array of options available in 3.5, my game nights are still, to this day, 3.5. 3.5 for the win!
I don't think options are a bad thing, right up to a point just shy of when a game drowns in them 😉
Interesting overview! Trying to catalogue WOTC output for 3e is a monumental task. It's sad that they only published a few new, non-nostalgia focused adventures for 3e. The Sunless Citadel, Forge of Fury and Heart of Nightfang Spire are in my view three great location based adventures that I had a lot of fun with. I used Bastion of Broken Souls as a campaign ender, but in reality I only used the ideas within and ignored most of the implementation. Red Hand of Doom is one I've never run, but have read multiple times and really like the look of. I've also run Expedition to Castle Ravenloft and a big chunk of Expedition to Castle Greyhawk. Both are only okay. There's some cool stuff but in general I'd say they're over-engineered.
Maybe it's just a coincidence, but you were discussing multilevel dungeons as "dross" and flashed up Barrowmaze and Rappan Athuk. Barrowmaze wasn't released for 3e, and it's not a multi-level dungeon. It's more of a single level sprawl with lots of entrances from the barrow mounds on the moor above. It's a site based adventure that was made for old school systems and converted into 5e. I think it's really good, but it's not for people who don't like dungeons or undead. Rappan Athuk certainly is a multi-level megadungeon, but it's also one of the best things I've ever played. Was lucky enough to play in a complete run through from level 1 to level 15 that ended in a TPK and I'd rank it as one of my best experiences playing roleplaying games.
Also, I can see why 4e is not to everyone's taste and I respect that, but there was some cool stuff released in that time even if you don't like the mechanics much. The default setting was really well designed for adventures, and I much prefer the 4e version of the planes. The books like Underdark, Planes Above and Planes Below were all great and packed with evocative and interesting ideas for games, and the default Nentir Vale setting was great for encouraging new DMs to make their own adventures.
I take your point with respect to Barrowmaze. In my mind, it has the association to the period we're talking about - the OSR rose due to the D20 licence, with a number of retro-clones (including LL) using LL to recreate the feel of older editions. So yes, Barrowmaze wasn't a direct release for 3E or D20, within that caveat.
I'd also like to qualify the "dross" comment. At the time, there was (I feel) a lot of false nostalgia for dungeon crawls, in that it was a play style from "back in the day", not the play style. So therefore, labelling the plethora of "megadungeons" as "authentic old-school experiences" was, to me, disingenuous. There was a lot of them. Of the many, I will admit that Barrowmaze is by far the least contender for the "dross" label.
I'm also not entirely an anti-megadungeoneer, for the record. I've breathed a fair bit of life into the foundation of WGR1, for example.
I'm also a big fan of people enjoying what they want to enjoy! When it comes to subjective opinion on one thing or another, as I note in some of my videos, no-one is wrong. These are my opinions, and you're welcome to disagree - and, as you have done, describe why. This is where discussion becomes useful and constructive, and how we learn from each other.
Anyway... My main thoughts on 4E will have to wait until I get to that video. But in general - I'm not wholly negative about it. Just mostly.
@@WillyMuffinUK Yeah no worries, and even if you were wholly negative I'd respect that. You seem to think through your ideas pretty carefully, and that's what I enjoy listening to anyway, even if I come to different conclusions.
I guess count me in the group of people who really likes megadungeons from that period - I started in 3rd edition, never played anything earlier, and finding blogs talking about megadungeons really piqued my interest and got me excited about gaming again. I had moved country and was now mostly playing online, with online tabletops, tokens, lighting and vision and all that, and I think that set up helps to elevate the virtues of megadungeon play (the small scale exploration, importance of light, and sense of discovery) while doing away with some of the downsides (the tediousness of describing the dimensions of each room and the need for back and forth about where players move next etc). It also was the easiest sort of prep for that style of play- just prep the maps and stock them, and you're done.
I think really old school adversarial megadungeon play probably fell by the wayside for good reason, and I can see that plenty of published megadungeons are a pile of slog. I've run Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil for example, and I'm really glad my players only ever conducted raids on the mines rather than trying to "clear", because it would have been a ridiculous slog if they'd gone room by room.
@@johnnybigbones4955 I actually like ToEE - but the importance there, for me, is to run it like the home of a bunch of factions, rather than a thing to be explored statically room by room. Yeah, that'd be a tedious slog of 10-by-10 squares.
The (slightly) amusing thing for me was going from being able to count the folks running megadungeon campaigns on the fingers of one foot back in the late 70s and through the 80s, to perhaps the fingers of one hand once the Undermountain sets came out, to a bunch of fingers across the hands of a hecatoncheires into 3E - with authors stating "this is how we used to play in the olde days".
When no, no it wasn't.
(Caveat - yes, it probably was for some people, particularly those taken with tales of Blackmoor and Greyhawk)
3.5 is the gold standard for D&D, once you start playing it on a VTT that does all the math for you, e.g. Fantasy Grounds, it is much easier to DM.
Perhaps, from a consistency of mechanics perspective. That's not always necessary to make a game work, though. Anyway, I do like 3.5E, and played it a ton at the time - but, I have found it much easier to walk away from than, say, BECMI/BX/1st/2nd. I still play all of those editions, plus 5E, from a D&D perspective - my 3/3.5E books relegated to reference.
And I think that was actually because of the mathematical consistencies. For my favourite D&D editions, you just make stuff up. For 3.5E, you make stuff up within the conformity of the rules. That makes getting the imagination gears moving just feel like work. I think you say it all when you state it becomes gold standard once you're using a system that picks up the maths for you.
Just wanted to say that I stumbled across your videos a couple of days ago and I am really enjoying the insight into D&D's past. As someone that really started with 5e (after a brief campaign in my teenage years in 3.5e), it strikes me how well written and imaginative the earlier editions of D&D were/are.
With the revival of OSR and, in my view, the lack of quality content being delivered by WotC, I have taken to delving into modules/adventures from earlier editions as inspiration for my own campaigns. Currently running a Ravenloft campaign (because that is obv. where you start as a DM!) and have loved adding material from earlier adventures set in the plane; I've nabbed a lot from Carnival (2e) and also included an adaptation of the Call of Cthulhu module, "The Atrocity Exhibition".
To hear you speak with such passion and enthusiasm about certain adventure books and paths has instantly grown my DriveThrough/DMG wishlist tenfold! I honestly feel like my future in TTRPGs (at the moment mainly D&D and DCC) lies more in the past (when it comes to materials)!
It's been a fair chunk of my life, so hopefully some of the passion comes over! Thank-you - I am glad you're finding them useful and entertaining.
Such a great video on my favorite edition! As the forever DM, I allow people to make a character from any combination of the player's handbook + 1 source book + the campaign setting(if we are using one). Doing it this way stops anything too broken but the players can still basically do whatever
Not a bad way to keep things sane.
I played 3rd for quite a few years (5), and looking back today, having also played Pathfinder 2e and 5th edition, I'm very happy to go back now and play Basic Fantasy RPG and BECMI only, for the most part. Just too much muddy-ing of the waters for me....ruins it for me if you've got a thousand inch-deep choices but nothing more really. IMHO
Thnx for this video, sir!! 👍
I'm with you, there. I loved 3rd right up until the stack of books topped a foot - and it's more or less the same with most editions. I think WotC are being a little more sensible with 5th than they were with 3rd and 4th.
But at the end of the day - the BECMI Rules Cyclopedia has everything you need for some D&D fun. One book, no millions of esoteric skills and feats that don't particularly add anything worthwhile, just good, clean, goblin-murdering fun.
@@WillyMuffinUK Absolutely! 😁👍
There's also Star Wars 5e, and Runequest. I like Saga. The FFG is good as well. As a teenager I played d6. It wasn't bad either.
Star Wars 5E? Not heard of that. FFG have had the licence since before 5E. WotC had Star Wars during 3E's run, so we had a D20/3E Star Wars, which was then somewhat simplified into Saga. FFG is fun, and WEG D6 was more fun.
I cover the various Star Wars games here: th-cam.com/video/S7GMZUxWmyk/w-d-xo.html
RuneQuest is here:
th-cam.com/video/kw_GUIQJ-cM/w-d-xo.html
and here... th-cam.com/video/dntlz1FAsJE/w-d-xo.html
Too many options made the game bad. Imagine deciding you no longer liked riding motorcycles, because you found out there where too many different kinds of motorcycles, and you couldn't ride them all. Truly bizarre.
What it actually did was allow your table to use the rules and options you liked, and my table to use the rules and options I liked, and we didn't need to be cookie cutters of a one-size-fits-all game. The most fun I ever had playing D&D was playing 3rd edition.
Your analogy doesn't work.
It does work on the basis that there are a large number of different games to choose from (different types of bike, in your analogy) - not one bike with 6000 options.
Options are good. Too many options that are simply variations on a theme are not - they dilute a system to the point of making reference very difficult and tracking the interaction of all of the options impossible.
@@WillyMuffinUK Thanks for your feedback, I feel like the analogy works just fine, the bikes are the rules, and you are under no obligation to use them all. Got a book you don't like, leave it on the shelf. In the games I run, the luck feats from Complete Scoundrel are not used. Every table gets to make that choice.
I would rather have interesting and unique options that I choose, than be a cookie cutter subclass like modern 5e, or not have anything unique to do at all like older games.
I respect your opinion, and happy gaming.
@@alexandriamason2355 There's room for all manner of opinions in this strange hobby of ours 🙂
Those two games being (A)D&D and Ars Magica, not AD&D and Basic D&D.
Context..?
When you said D&D was the merging of two games. D&D and AD&D are similar enough to be the same game. The 3rd Edition of the Player's Handbook was written by Johnathan Tweet (former co-owner of Lion Rampant and with Mark Rein*Hagen the creator of Ars Magica) and you can see the imprint of Ars Magica in it. From the core mechanic (using a d20 instead of a d10), to the primacy of ability bonuses over ability scores, to the Core ability of the Barbarian (The bonuses for Rage are almost word for word the Berserk Virtue, though the trigger and the cool down are different), and especially the skill list: Animal Empathy/Ken, Animal Handling, Concentration, Intuit Direction (Sense), Read Lips, and so on. And Familiar/Animal Companion abilities. And there is always more.
@@AchanhiArusa Ahh, see what you're saying there.
From my perspective, Monte Cook, editor of many Rolemaster 2nd Ed. books, part of the 3E design team, author of 3E DMG. Parallels between RM and 3E include variable skill cost per class, unified mathematics, distinct sources of magic, critical hits as a core mechanic, classes having more focus on skill-based development than specific class abilities,. The very specificity of conditions and game terms, for me, makes it more "RM Lite" than Ars Magica in feel - but I can absolutely see the influences you're talking about, too.
Subbed.
Thank you!
Sorry, but most like Barrowmaze
Most of whom?
I don't deny that some people love it, and I know quite a few folk enjoy huge dungeons.
@@WillyMuffinUK have seen a lot of activity through You Tube streaming of Barrowmaze. I know that some developers have made some attempts to convert it for VTT use also.
I run a group at the table and they enjoy these dungeon crawls as long as their is a good story with it. They just need a purpose for being there.
@@jctxcboy36 I have to admit, I've seen nothing on YT from them. That may be the platform's targeted content at work - if you've searched for and watched content about it once, you'll end up with a lot of it in your feed (and how I wish I'd never watched any flat earth videos for the laugh!)
Anyway, as I said, I'm not taking away from anyone who does enjoy that sort of adventure. My main point is that when most of these were put out, they were touted as examples of how RPGs were played back in the day, and that simply isn't true. Sure, megadungeon crawls were a thing some people did, but it was neither the norm nor the default.
If you enjoy 'em, enjoy 'em! This grumpy old sod is in no way attempting to detract from that.
@@WillyMuffinUK it’s all good. I am also a long term player from the b/x box set. I have about 8-12 players that play on a regular basis where I try to expose these young kids on how it was originally played in the hopes that they can appreciate how we got to 5e
@@jctxcboy36 A noble pursuit, and partly why I started doing gaming videos here. My kids play 5E, but they have been given a fair cross-the-board RPG education!
Gracias por esta reseña, el legado de D&D 3e es grande y sigue siendo un gran juego.
It certainly stands as a landmark in the RPG hobby - not least from the D20 licence and OGL perspective.
Credit to you for not reviewing an edition you admit to not playing, but you're dead wrong about 4e and your own lack of experience with it makes your opinion of it meaningless to others. Dismissing an RPG from a read-through with zero play time is the height of folly. Go back and look at, say, AD&D with a critical eye and ask yourself honestly, would you have said that mess was a playable game if you hadn't ever played?
I disagree, and there are some fair reasons why whatever opinion I hold of 4E is not meaningless, and isn't folly.
So, first - caveat. Reviewing any game with zero experience of it is meaningless. Similarly, reviewing a book you've not read, reviewing an album you've not listened to, etc. etc. That I absolutely agree with and admit - and it is why, for example, you won't see a review of, say, Warhammer FRP on my channel. Never played it, have no experience of it, have no experience - and this is important - with the franchise at all (beyond one game of Warhammer 1st Ed waaaaaaaaay back, and one game of Warhammer 40K not quite so waaaaay back).
Second caveat - reviewers do the above all of the time when new games are released. The reviews are based on read-through of the rules, examination of the components, etc.
But anything labelled "Dungeons & Dragons" I absolutely hold to being able to review, in context, with lived familiarity of the franchise and its history. If 4E was instead, say, "Dragon-Killing With Swords The RPG", sure. Different game. Different context. Nothing for me to review there, without actually playing it.
However, 4E isn't a different game. It purports to be an edition of a game I've been playing for a heck of a long time. That is the context in which it it gets a review, and it absolutely can live or die on a read-through without play. 4E states that it is an edition of D&D, so therefore it will get a review in the context of being an edition of D&D within decades of experience of playing D&D. As an edition of D&D, I find it coming up short on several fronts.
However, I have not entirely had no experience of the 4E game and concepts, which I will touch on when I get to that particular video. In fact, some of the core concepts that are distinctly 4E do make for an enjoyable type of game.
As far as AD&D goes... Well, I played it, after reading it - so yes, that "mess" was demonstrably playable. Perhaps having been through Basic gave me a handle on the basics, but that was the point of Basic, was it not? Regardless, I'm not even saying 4E is "unplayable" - I'm saying "as an edition of D&D, it's not even in the Top 6".
@@WillyMuffinUK Nuts to you. Muted.
@@richmcgee434 🤷