Quote from: Banjo Destructo on August 23, 2022, 11:27:29 AM
I think 3.5 is the one I'm most familiar with, it's probably my favorite.  I also like variations people have made to it, like E6, where characters get to "epic level" at level 6, and stop gaining Hit Dice and their power growth slows down after level 6.

I Have to admit, I played 3.5 and wasn't impressed.  Seemed a bit overcomplicated and we spent more time looking up rules than playing.  With such limited time, I want to spend that time playing, any time I spend looking up rules is wasted time.  I like 5e because the rules don't get in the way, that and I think 3.0/3.5 were WOTC attempt at turning D&D back into a wargame.

So I stopped playing D&D until 5th edition where it was more accessible.

But that's my two cents.

Quote from: GhostNinja on August 24, 2022, 09:34:49 AM

Quote from: Banjo Destructo on August 23, 2022, 11:27:29 AM
I think 3.5 is the one I'm most familiar with, it's probably my favorite.  I also like variations people have made to it, like E6, where characters get to "epic level" at level 6, and stop gaining Hit Dice and their power growth slows down after level 6.

I Have to admit, I played 3.5 and wasn't impressed.  Seemed a bit overcomplicated and we spent more time looking up rules than playing.  With such limited time, I want to spend that time playing, any time I spend looking up rules is wasted time.  I like 5e because the rules don't get in the way, that and I think 3.0/3.5 were WOTC attempt at turning D&D back into a wargame.

So I stopped playing D&D until 5th edition where it was more accessible.

But that's my two cents.

That's fair.  3.5 did feel very power gamey, I liked E6 because it limited the power gamey ness.  5e at its core is pretty good, but I think there's way too many classes and too many class branches, which are basically built in prestige classes.    I also don't like the "Proficiency" making everyone have the same attack bonus in combat. 

There are lots of things I would tweak about 3.5 and 5e.

Quote from: Banjo Destructo on August 24, 2022, 11:33:39 AM

That's fair.  3.5 did feel very power gamey, I liked E6 because it limited the power gamey ness.  5e at its core is pretty good, but I think there's way too many classes and too many class branches, which are basically built in prestige classes.    I also don't like the "Proficiency" making everyone have the same attack bonus in combat. 

There are lots of things I would tweak about 3.5 and 5e.

The power gamey part, definitely was a problem for me.  Plus it felt like 3.5 was really hard to play via Theater of the Mind, it felt like you really couldn't do combat without having miniatures out.  I don't mind Mini's and use them when needed, but 3.5 felt like you couldn't play without them which was annoying to me.  YMMV.

4E brought me back to D&D after 20 years. It needs a lot of care to avoid powergaming and nascent woke, but the elegant and transparent system are the easiest system by far for a dungeon master to run. Keeps the players honest, heh.

Why? I love the equality of magic-users (whatever the class) and fighters (whatever the class). As a corollary, I am a fan of superhuman martial heroes like Gilgalad, Wuxia heroes and Greek demigods.

I'm kinda partial to 3.0 with the core splatbooks.  One PHB with the equivalent of the old brown-cover 2e splatbooks.  Either Greyhawk (pick any flavor) or Kalamar. The 3.0 FRCS is nice, but then it leads to wanting all of the FR supplements which drives into 3.5 territory.

I'm not as much of a fan of 3.5 because it "cleaned things up" but made ìt soulless in the process. That, and the 3.5 supplements just became masturbatory material.

3.0 with a smaller list of prestige classes and feats. 

Quote from: 3catcircus on September 02, 2022, 03:25:26 PM
I'm kinda partial to 3.0 with the core splatbooks.  One PHB with the equivalent of the old brown-cover 2e splatbooks.  Either Greyhawk (pick any flavor) or Kalamar. The 3.0 FRCS is nice, but then it leads to wanting all of the FR supplements which drives into 3.5 territory.

I'm not as much of a fan of 3.5 because it "cleaned things up" but made ìt soulless in the process. That, and the 3.5 supplements just became masturbatory material.

3.0 with a smaller list of prestige classes and feats.

What you describe sounds interesting, but i would insist on ASI's only.  I'd avoid Feats, altogether.

Quote from: Jam The MF on September 02, 2022, 04:52:10 PM

Quote from: 3catcircus on September 02, 2022, 03:25:26 PM
I'm kinda partial to 3.0 with the core splatbooks.  One PHB with the equivalent of the old brown-cover 2e splatbooks.  Either Greyhawk (pick any flavor) or Kalamar. The 3.0 FRCS is nice, but then it leads to wanting all of the FR supplements which drives into 3.5 territory.

I'm not as much of a fan of 3.5 because it "cleaned things up" but made ìt soulless in the process. That, and the 3.5 supplements just became masturbatory material.

3.0 with a smaller list of prestige classes and feats.

What you describe sounds interesting, but i would insist on ASI's only.  I'd avoid Feats, altogether.

I'm fine with the flavor feats (like the ones tied to Greyhawk regions in one of the Dragon issues). But nothing that mechanically achieves what you can just try to do with DM approval (all of those you need this feat to try and do an Errol Flynn combat thing, for example).

Quote from: Jam The MF on September 02, 2022, 04:52:10 PM

Quote from: 3catcircus on September 02, 2022, 03:25:26 PM
I'm kinda partial to 3.0 with the core splatbooks.  One PHB with the equivalent of the old brown-cover 2e splatbooks.  Either Greyhawk (pick any flavor) or Kalamar. The 3.0 FRCS is nice, but then it leads to wanting all of the FR supplements which drives into 3.5 territory.

I'm not as much of a fan of 3.5 because it "cleaned things up" but made ìt soulless in the process. That, and the 3.5 supplements just became masturbatory material.

3.0 with a smaller list of prestige classes and feats.

What you describe sounds interesting, but i would insist on ASI's only.  I'd avoid Feats, altogether.

You really can't strip the feats out of 3.0 or 3.5, at least not unless you're willing to totally redesign the Fighter (and to a lesser extent the Wizard). Bonus feats are literally their only class feature.

Quote from: 3catcircus on September 02, 2022, 07:16:41 PM

Quote from: Jam The MF on September 02, 2022, 04:52:10 PM

Quote from: 3catcircus on September 02, 2022, 03:25:26 PM
I'm kinda partial to 3.0 with the core splatbooks.  One PHB with the equivalent of the old brown-cover 2e splatbooks.  Either Greyhawk (pick any flavor) or Kalamar. The 3.0 FRCS is nice, but then it leads to wanting all of the FR supplements which drives into 3.5 territory.

I'm not as much of a fan of 3.5 because it "cleaned things up" but made ìt soulless in the process. That, and the 3.5 supplements just became masturbatory material.

3.0 with a smaller list of prestige classes and feats.

What you describe sounds interesting, but i would insist on ASI's only.  I'd avoid Feats, altogether.

I'm fine with the flavor feats (like the ones tied to Greyhawk regions in one of the Dragon issues). But nothing that mechanically achieves what you can just try to do with DM approval (all of those you need this feat to try and do an Errol Flynn combat thing, for example).

My memory of 3.x is that that was never an issue with feats. Looking through the PHB feat list now, they're virtually all either flat stat bonuses, or things that alter the action economy/exempt you from certain rules (such as quick draw, attacking mid-move, not needing spell components, etc.)

Quote from: ForgottenF on September 02, 2022, 07:45:41 PM

Quote from: 3catcircus on September 02, 2022, 07:16:41 PM

Quote from: Jam The MF on September 02, 2022, 04:52:10 PM

Quote from: 3catcircus on September 02, 2022, 03:25:26 PM
I'm kinda partial to 3.0 with the core splatbooks.  One PHB with the equivalent of the old brown-cover 2e splatbooks.  Either Greyhawk (pick any flavor) or Kalamar. The 3.0 FRCS is nice, but then it leads to wanting all of the FR supplements which drives into 3.5 territory.

I'm not as much of a fan of 3.5 because it "cleaned things up" but made ìt soulless in the process. That, and the 3.5 supplements just became masturbatory material.

3.0 with a smaller list of prestige classes and feats.

What you describe sounds interesting, but i would insist on ASI's only.  I'd avoid Feats, altogether.

I'm fine with the flavor feats (like the ones tied to Greyhawk regions in one of the Dragon issues). But nothing that mechanically achieves what you can just try to do with DM approval (all of those you need this feat to try and do an Errol Flynn combat thing, for example).

My memory of 3.x is that that was never an issue with feats. Looking through the PHB feat list now, they're virtually all either flat stat bonuses, or things that alter the action economy/exempt you from certain rules (such as quick draw, attacking mid-move, not needing spell components, etc.)

That's just it though - altering the action economy is a big problem that all d20 games share.

I'd much prefer a "tick" system tied to an encumbrance-based initiative.  Those who can act quicker can do more in a round - for example, a seasoned veteran swashbuckler (light encumbrance, init 20) could leap over a table (4 ticks) and run through the evil king's guards with his rapier (4 ticks each, finishing on init before they even fully realize what's happening (medium encumbrance, init 10) and try to draw their swords (2 ticks).

Quote from: ForgottenF on September 02, 2022, 07:37:38 PM
You really can't strip the feats out of 3.0 or 3.5, at least not unless you're willing to totally redesign the Fighter (and to a lesser extent the Wizard). Bonus feats are literally their only class feature.

You have identified the problem.  The answer is not in feats, at least not entirely.

The real problem with WotC feats in general is that, like multi-classing, it is designed to be multiple things at once.  Feats can't be all those things and do all of them well.  This is one of the reasons that the problem gets worse as the supplements arrive.  An issue arises in design.  There are several questions that should be asked.  Should we even address it?  If so, how it is best addressed?  What are the repercussions of addressing it that way?  Are the repercussions severe enough that maybe we should reconsider about addressing it at all?  And so on.  Instead, what WotC does is something like, "Make it a feat" or "Let multi-classing handle it" or lately, "Give advantage or disadvantage".  Those are not automatically wrong answers for any given question, merely because they are reflexive and simple.  Yet, for every problem there is a simple, obvious, wrong answer--and sometimes it is one of those answers.

Feats that were designed to be narrow and kept that way could work fairly well.  For example, "Let characters do explicitly martial things, better than before."  You give fighters lots of them, other "martial" classes a fair chunk, and then maybe a few for characters that sit on the edge (depending on what multi-classing and other systems are supposed to be for).  By definition, such a system should be pretty much complete on launch of the design.  Therefore, it would be the last place to just chunk something later that came up.

Quote from: ForgottenF on September 02, 2022, 07:37:38 PM

Quote from: Jam The MF on September 02, 2022, 04:52:10 PM

Quote from: 3catcircus on September 02, 2022, 03:25:26 PM
I'm kinda partial to 3.0 with the core splatbooks.  One PHB with the equivalent of the old brown-cover 2e splatbooks.  Either Greyhawk (pick any flavor) or Kalamar. The 3.0 FRCS is nice, but then it leads to wanting all of the FR supplements which drives into 3.5 territory.

I'm not as much of a fan of 3.5 because it "cleaned things up" but made ìt soulless in the process. That, and the 3.5 supplements just became masturbatory material.

3.0 with a smaller list of prestige classes and feats.

What you describe sounds interesting, but i would insist on ASI's only.  I'd avoid Feats, altogether.

You really can't strip the feats out of 3.0 or 3.5, at least not unless you're willing to totally redesign the Fighter (and to a lesser extent the Wizard). Bonus feats are literally their only class feature.

Give the Fighter extra attacks earlier, better weapon damage, a magic weapon; and watch them enjoy plowing through their enemies, and chasing the barmaids at the local tavern, as bards sing about their exploits.

Stars/Worlds without Numbers handled feats pretty well, and is a well regarded OSR game.

I strongly recommend against pruning the feats out of 3.X.  "ASI" is not even a 3.X term.  You could make the case that base stats don't go up enough in 3.X (you have to spend every up on your mainstat, for instance- you could probably offer more bonuses to lower stats at other levels in addition), but there's no argument against feats in general.

Feats do need to be maintained.  If you look at 3.0 or 3.5 or Pathfinder feats and think "there's too much stuff I don't want", then you should set about pruning and adding to customize it for your game.  Even if you just say 'core only' or whatever.  But honestly, that work will definitely help make combat the way you want it for your table.  Dropping feats entirely loses a bunch of customization and will likely result in many classes being dropped by the wayside.  If you look at 3.X and want to drop feats, you should be looking at porting skills into OSR instead.

Quote from: Jam The MF on September 03, 2022, 10:27:55 AM

Quote from: ForgottenF on September 02, 2022, 07:37:38 PM

Quote from: Jam The MF on September 02, 2022, 04:52:10 PM

Quote from: 3catcircus on September 02, 2022, 03:25:26 PM
I'm kinda partial to 3.0 with the core splatbooks.  One PHB with the equivalent of the old brown-cover 2e splatbooks.  Either Greyhawk (pick any flavor) or Kalamar. The 3.0 FRCS is nice, but then it leads to wanting all of the FR supplements which drives into 3.5 territory.

I'm not as much of a fan of 3.5 because it "cleaned things up" but made ìt soulless in the process. That, and the 3.5 supplements just became masturbatory material.

3.0 with a smaller list of prestige classes and feats.

What you describe sounds interesting, but i would insist on ASI's only.  I'd avoid Feats, altogether.

You really can't strip the feats out of 3.0 or 3.5, at least not unless you're willing to totally redesign the Fighter (and to a lesser extent the Wizard). Bonus feats are literally their only class feature.

Give the Fighter extra attacks earlier, better weapon damage, a magic weapon; and watch them enjoy plowing through their enemies, and chasing the barmaids at the local tavern, as bards sing about their exploits.

Could not disagree more. The third edition fighter really doesn't need to be any more of an "I hit it with my sword" class. What I would do, if I was stripping out feats, is fold together the fighter and the ranger (a famously underwhelming class in 3e) I'd give them the ranger's skill ranks, fighting style etc, but let animal companions just be a druid thing. Hell, I might even roll some of the barbarian features in and just have a warrior class. You would almost have to, in order to have a class that can remotely compete with CODzilla.