I love 3.x D&D. When I first opened the PHB in August 2000 and saw things like Fortitude and Reflex saves I was confused but it quickly made sense. How can you save vs Magic Wands to avoid a pit? That’s stupid – Reflex made sense.
I looked at character development in much the same way. Instead of characters being practically the same every time you built one, they could now be customised with feats and skills, making it possible to have diversity within a character class.
Then of course there was combat. It was the answer to all my prayers. It took away all the ambiguity that the previous editions hadn’t. Where once the DM may have ruled that you can’t reach someone or you can’t squeeze past, now you could have it all laid out before you, reinforced by the feats and skills you chose earlier. This was superb! Or so I thought…
I talked with a friend last week that wanted to start up a roleplaying group at work. However, to my surprise he was going to play Vampire rather than his beloved D&D. When I asked him why, he cited props as the problem. Because of the need for a battlemat and miniatures for D&D combat it would just be too cumbersome and a little bewildering to new players. I could only nod my head in agreement.
Now some may argue that you don’t need miniatures to play 3.x D&D but I’m not convinced. Many feats and skills chosen in character development are crucial to movement within combat and may not be used to their potential without a battlemat. So does this make D&D a less portable game than it used to be? You can’t just whip out a few books and start playing like in the good old days without experiencing problems, can you? For instance, try creating a character sheet on a blank sheet of paper; it’s not as easy as it used to be.
Couple this with the recent posts about statblock errors; now I’m not naïve enough to think that printing errors never occurred in older publications, but it was much easier to build a character and just start playing back then wasn’t it?
And remember combat? It was still exciting – heck, possibly even more imaginative, as the DM decided who you could reach and couldn’t – and you had to use your mind’s eye rather than the battlemat so inversely it seemed more real. Also, it didn’t take soooo long at high levels. These days I am reluctant to enter into high level combat because I don’t think I’m going to be finished by the time I’ve got to get home.
So I guess I’m just saying that I love the new system but am beginning to see the holes and wonder if the old one was better in many respects. What do you lot think? Did it leave more to the imagination? Did the fact that character builds were so similar make you more creative with you character development instead of relying on your feat/skill choices to do that for you? Wasn’t it easier to just play a game of D&D back then?
Discuss…
the old system was 'easier' but less logical, and far less realistic. it also pigeonholed players and characters into certain molds. Yes, there was some flexibility inside the molds, and yes, house rules often added much greater flexibility, but if you played it hard to the rules, for example, if you saw an illusionist, and knew he was an illusionist, you knew he was either human or gnome, even if he tried to disguise his race. You saw dwarves and elves and knew their maximum levels unless they were thieves....
and monsters were stuck as written unless you jacked with them, no advancement, monsters with character levels were rare at best....
Maybe the game is a little harder to play, but the experience is a much better one for it (in my opinion)
I often play without miniatures, and it is more difficult with 3x then the earlier additions. Not sure I'd say it was better back in the day though, many of the changes in 3x make the game run more smoothly imo. Still, I'm less than happy about the amount of miniature reliance built into the system. Without miniatures things get mudddy but doable.
First off, I've never played anything but 3.x D&D.
Now, I've seen, on multiple occasions, character sheets unavailable or lost, and the replacement was notebook paper, and it worked fine. I've even seen a DM run an adventure with all the stats of all the non-MM foes on notebook paper. So, yes, you can use that, and don't necessarily need the character sheet. Most of my planning is done on scrap paper, and by the time I'm done, I just transpose it all over to the character sheet. The end result is easier to read, but hardly necessary.
And, my group doesn't use miniatures. We do use a battlemat, but that's easily folded and stuck in a book for quick transport. We used to use the old Mage Knight figures one of my friends had, but they were too invaried and didn't really fit on the map. So we ditched them and just used whatever was laying around- coins, pieces of paper, etc. Everyone's character was a different object and always easily seen. Enemies were drawn on with dry erase markers, using just their initials and a number beside them if there was more than one of a kind, so the DM could keep track. Terrain and such has always just been drawn on the map. Now, we use dice. Any dice you don't plan on using and someone else doesn't need? That's your marker. Enemies of the same type use the same type of dice with a different number facing up, which is easy to track.
So no, miniatures are not needed, the battlemap is not cumbersome, and the tactical layout is the only way I can even invision combat.
Also, by not using miniatures but a clearly symbolic marker, your mind is freed up to imagine the foe however the DM describes it/you want to. So you do get the whole "imagined, mind's eye" experience to combat. Not to mention the artwork in 3.x is, typically, MUCH better than in older editions, which really helps imagining the scene.
As has been said before, the past editions often seem better because you were introduced on them and had your exploratory, developmental, formative adventures in them. Not to mention, in most memories, people often remeber the good and overlook/forget the bad.
Now, the one thing I can't comment on is high-level combat, as we've never run a real combat situation above 12th level, and even then, we were new to the rules and misunderstood a vast amount of them. So, I remain (perhaps blissfully?) unaware of the alleged nightmare of high level combat.
Vampire? --groan--
Yeah, we've all got "Vampire" friends. The system is OK, I guess. It does its job as a story-telling device (too bad all the storys I've been in sucked), but D&D is a different experience.
And D&D has its pitfalls, as well. We could talk about 3.Xs various problems to ad naseum (my biggest issue is the imbalancing nature supplements bring), but I wouldn't be playing D&D if it were still 2nd edition; I'd be playing Powers & Perils.
Different Strokes for Different Folks, I suppose.
|
So I guess I’m just saying that I love the new system but am beginning to see the holes and wonder if the old one was better in many respects. What do you lot think?
Please, no... Don't go back...
I remember playing an 18th level wizard with 24 hit points (after like 8th level a wizard got 1 hit point and no bonus due to CON).
I remember combat being a real pain -- people would roll every "round" for a new initiative. Then there were weapon speeds. Then some people would go multiple times in a round, but not at the same time. Etc.
THAC0 was a terrible concept and difficult to come up with a reasonable stat on the fly.
Multiclassing and Dual-classing was difficult to calculate and often times didn't make sense.
Dwarves couldn't just put on a magic item and use it.
There were very few, if any, (good) item creation rules -- especially for non-wizards.
Many of the abilities were percentage based which meant that the big burly fighter with a 20 strength (with magic assistance) had a chance to fail to bust down a door while a wizard with a 6 strength had a chance to succeed.
Saving throws (as mentioned) were difficult to understand the progression both in level advancement and which save you use for specific events.
Gnolls and Trolls and most other creatures couldn't be (easily) advanced.
From a DM's point of view, I find it much easier to "create" stats for a creature on the fly since everything is so incredibly math based. You said "For instance, try creating a character sheet on a blank sheet of paper..." I don't know about a character "sheet", but I can come up with most/all of the important stats in my head without sheets now that I understand how the formulas work (sheets help, but I feel that it is easier in its current state). Try coming up with a 3rd level fighter's saving throws without the manual from 2nd edition.
Even in 2nd edition, we would use attack maps. Even if it wasn't necessary, it is generally a good idea to get a good view of where things are situated. Even if it is as simple as having dice on the table to show orientation and proximity.
As far as how long combat takes at higher levels -- if the PCs work up to the higher levels, it usually isn't too bad. The problems often start when they create a character that has 127 abilities and the player doesn't know what everything does. I remember high levels in 2nd edition being long as well. I also remember that going from 17th to 18th level as a wizard meant that I got 1 more hit point and that was about it.
It also seems odd to me that you would blame creativity on the mechanics of the game. It seems that mechanics should have very little to do with descriptions, plots, and NPC interaction.
Even if Vampire didn't need a battlemat, I would still want to know where people were and how things are situated.
A few ramblings from one who has been around a while...
And if you go back to AD&D -- a 16th level illusionist could finally cast magic missile? A bard was a 10th level Fighter, 10th level Rogue, 10th level Wizard and then he was a 1st level Bard?
3.x definitely slows the game down to a crawl during combat situations and the more people you have, the slower. I love the game for its character creation and development options, though. Character creation is always one of the best things about starting up a new game.
Having said that, 3.x is cumbersome when it comes to combat. More realistic, but my roleplaying experience doesnt need to come from combat and Ive always felt that I could envision the battles better without the battlemat.
Anyway, if youre interested in a new game that is still d20 D&D in its basic form and is Greyhawk with a new name check out Castles and Crusades by Gary Gygax.
Am I allowed to do that?
I remember combat being a real pain -- people would roll every "round" for a new initiative. Then there were weapon speeds. Then some people would go multiple times in a round, but not at the same time. Etc.
I think that weapon speed is the one thing I miss most! Not enough to house-rule it, though.
The weapon speed dynamic made it feel more dynamic and exciting for me. There are so many movies where a big guy swings a big axe while the little guy gets inside and slices him two or three times before the axe comes back around.
The whole idea of dodging in and out of melee works best with weapon speed, I think.
Nice topic. I've gone through every addition there was and would never go back to any of them after planting myself comfortably in v.3x. I have very fond memories of adventures I played in or ran back in the Basic/Expert/1ed/2ed days, but not a lot of fond memories about the rules systems. There was always so much work involved in trying to explain why this or that wouldn't do what a player thought it would and rules arguments were maddening because most of the rules were so arbitrary and nonsensical.
At least with the current addition, the rules are VERY clear with a few exception here and there.
As far as miniatures and battle mats go, every gaming group I played with used them in one form or the other since the beginning. It seems better if you use them, IMO, but I've seen it done without. There's always a lot more questions from the players without, since they may have a hard time seeing what the DM is trying to describe. I do see what you're saying, though. Staring at a painted piece of metal on a table can sometimes really distract from the mental imagery. A good DM will try to divert your attention away from the game table to plant the correct scene in your head, though, and keep it there until it's time to use the minis.
Anyway, that's my angle on things.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
Some comments...
THACO is essentially the same mechanic that D&D uses now, lots of discussion about this when 3rd ed first came out. Basically, since the system is now addition based, it's easier on the brain, but with the exception of skipping the 6 repeated 20s (now that WAS an awful mechanic), it is the same odds.
Opening a door is still percentage based, and it is still pretty goofy. 10 points of Strength only gives you a 25% higher chance to open something that's stuck, the die roll is really the deciding factor in 3.5E. One of the worst parts of the system is ability checks.
A gnoll or troll was pretty easy to advance - you just added HD. Actually easier than it is now.
Please, no... Don't go back...
THAC0 was a terrible concept and difficult to come up with a reasonable stat on the fly.
Multiclassing and Dual-classing was difficult to calculate and often times didn't make sense.
Dwarves couldn't just put on a magic item and use it.
There were very few, if any, (good) item creation rules -- especially for non-wizards.
Many of the abilities were percentage based which meant that the big burly fighter with a 20 strength (with magic assistance) had a chance to fail to bust down a door while a wizard with a 6 strength had a chance to succeed.
Gnolls and Trolls and most other creatures couldn't be (easily) advanced.
|
Bill is my man. Was 1 ed. better? Hell no!
Just to think back - does anyone remember the old Ogre? It had (I think), 4+1 HD, but no CON score, and did not use weapons or armour. And, interestingly, even though it was supposed to have 18/00 STR, it did 1d10 damage, with no bonuses to the THAC0 or damage. Even as 12-year olds, we thought that was ridiculous. And the list goes on and on, with those bugbear chiefs who fought like ogres, but saved vs. Rod, Staff and Wand as a Thief etc. And don't get me started on proficiency slots...
The d20 system unifies a game that was wildly incoherent, and makes sense of it. I for one do not miss a single thing about AD&D, 1 or 2 ed.
|
|
I think that weapon speed is the one thing I miss most! Not enough to house-rule it, though.
The weapon speed dynamic made it feel more dynamic and exciting for me. There are so many movies where a big guy swings a big axe while the little guy gets inside and slices him two or three times before the axe comes back around.
The whole idea of dodging in and out of melee works best with weapon speed, I think.
Actually, I agree with you here. I liked the "feel" of the weapon speeds -- I just didn't feel that it sped things up. If anything it dragged things out.
On the other side, it might have kept people more focused on the sequence in the round if they had less to do each time they were "up" which might have felt like things were moving quicker...
|
|
THACO is essentially the same mechanic that D&D uses now, lots of discussion about this when 3rd ed first came out. Basically, since the system is now addition based, it's easier on the brain, but with the exception of skipping the 6 repeated 20s (now that WAS an awful mechanic), it is the same odds.
The odds might be the same, but the old system you were trying to hit under (or equal?) to a target number. The target number seemed fairly random if you didn't have the books and made it difficult to calculate quickly in your head. I also didn't like that you could never get below -10 AC unless you were a dragon.
Opening a door is still percentage based, and it is still pretty goofy. 10 points of Strength only gives you a 25% higher chance to open something that's stuck, the die roll is really the deciding factor in 3.5E. One of the worst parts of the system is ability checks.
Actually opening doors might have been a bad example. In the old system, events/abilities had a fixed percentage that had to be rolled to make it happen. It was possible for anyone, regardless of stats to make it happen -- slim perhaps, but possible. Now that there is a target number that needs to be rolled, it is (nearly) impossible for some people to make a roll. If a DC is 30 and they have an 8 Strength, it will be REALLY hard to get to 30 with a d20-1. Also, the DC system puts the control back into the DM's court. The DM could quickly come up with a number (hard or easy) on the fly depending on what was behind the door and whether or not he felt is should be possible.
A gnoll or troll was pretty easy to advance - you just added HD. Actually easier than it is now.
Yes and no. I don't really call that "advancing". Giving a creature a few extra hit points doesn't really count. I always found it hard to believe that the Orc Tribal Leader had 4 extra hit points and that was it. And while I think that most people came up with ways (house rules and such) to actually advance a creature, I never felt that it was "easy" to do.
I have also played every edition of D&D, and have to say that 3rd ed. is superior in most ways to the previous editions. The flexibility of the most recent system is what I like about the game. Of course, greater flexibility in character creation, monster creation, etc the choices become more difficult and things become more complicated. In 1st Ed. there were countless restrictions that prevented people from playing an elven monk or dwarven wizard and in 2nd Ed. this continued. At least in 3rd Ed. nothing prevents you from playing whatever you want except for the DM, alignment, and prerequisites when it comes to prestige classes.
Choice itself can slow down the game and character creation for certain people can take longer than for others. I can whip up a stock dwarven fighter in a few minutes, but one friend of mine takes 2-3 hours to make up his mind about what he wants to play and the multiple accessorys that are coming out increase thsi time further. Still feats and prestige classes are something which 1st and 2nd Ed. didn't have and they just add to the game in my opinion (though certain people I play with say that there are too many feats and prestige classes these days).
Portability is more problematic with 3rd Ed. if you are using lots of books, miniatures, etc, but is not insurmountable. While combat is doable without miniatures it is more difficult and can become confusing. Miniatures also help people visiualize the combat. Of course, since most DMs run their games from home portability is less of an issue. Transport of D&D material is also easier because of inventions such as the laptop. Technology can solve some of these problems, though not all. Running games on the spur of the moment is hard in 3.5 but when do most people run these types of adventures? I certainly don't (well at least not since high school). Of course, portability prevents people from playing it while going camping, etc, but then that's the breaks.
I hated the percentage based chance of opening a door in 2nd Ed. Remember that doors have break DCs, so a person with a 6 strength has no chance of breaking down a DC 25 door, while a person with a 20 Str can do so on a 15 or better. That's the difference. Saving throws aren't perfect, but at least they make more sense, and skills are better than non-weapon proficiencies in almost every way and give PCs DCs to do things. Now you can roll to see if your Diplomacy with the dragon worked even if you as a person are no where near as persuasive as your Charisma 18 bard with 10 ranks in the skill.
The current to hit mechanic is superior to the THAC0 guaranteed. Try THAC0 with a couple of the bufoons I've played with. It's torture.
They say combat is slower in 3rd Ed. and sometimes it is. There are ways to speed combat up though, and 1st Ed. and 2nd Ed. combat weren't always as quick as some people would like to think they remember (in their "back in my day" bliss stories). Also, combat itself is more flexible. Rules are simply guidelines anyway, and can be thrown away if they slow things down too much. Don't want to use the diagonal move rules, don't use it. Don't want to use 10 zillion feats, then don't allow all the accessorys in your game.
A few of my firends say that combat is also more lethal in 3rd Ed. They obviously can't remember the time I killed off half the party in one 1st Ed. adventure or the guy who went through 7 2nd Ed. characters in one year. At least with 3.5 if you fail a saving throw versus poison you don't instantly die as most poisons seemed to do in 1st Ed.
I could go on and on, but you get the drift. I feel that when most people reminisce about 1st or 2nd Ed. they do so through rose tinted glasses. Its sort of like music. Perhaps those people who think 2nd Ed. is better than 3rd Ed. are just getting old?
Damn, Bill beat me to the doors thingy. I must learn to type faster! Also excellent points on monster advancement. In the last few years of 2nd Ed. (see the Axe of the Dwarfish Lords module) you saw the beginnings of the way monsters would be in 3rd Ed.
I dont agree that it was better back in the day when the game was in its infancy; sure, the game is more sophisticated now with many more rules and player templates and so many more books to choose from; but you may also pick and choose what you like; that is the advantage of such and open ended system.
Even back in 1980 we used miniatures and game boards to map out marching order and distances for things; drew many of our dungeon layouts on battlemaps with dry erase pens. Really, to me the only thing that has changed is the player character choices and added work for gms to tailor each monster as each in the manuals are states as being weakest of their kind which adds another dimension to the game ie not just a stone giant; but perhaps a monk stone giant. Treasure like magic items is much more difficult; but pc item creation is much clearer. There are a few more tedious details; but the idea that this game is or is not simple is really a matter of how deeply you wish to add depth to your game. Since 3.5 came out our group really has played with miniatures setting marching order and movement much less than with 1st ed. A player can still just as easily describe his sneaking up for a flanking movement or hanging back to shoot; or whatnot. Really, to play this game you pretty much only need a rulebook, a writing utensil; something to write on, and some imagination; dice are nice; but bare bones not really necessary; everything else is icing. Most nights in our group its pencils; papers; dice, graph paper and munchies with beverage - and players of course. Back in the day, and I have been their since almost the beginning, thing were not really different; it is only the smart people who have imagination and little time for tedious dunderheads that like to play, play well, and dont thing being a bimbo is a good enough reason to date a girl; :)
Contributor
|
I don't always use a battlemat and I disagree strongly about it being a necessity to running a good game.
I find a DM with an inability to be flexible with combat adjudication (even when using a battlemat)makes the game really unfun. That doesn't mean forsaking the rules, but it does require the players to trust a DM's rulings. It you don't have that, (as well as a DM capable of delivering good rulings) all the battlemats in the world won't help your game.
Director of Narrative
|
"Wen ah wuz yer age we hadda roll our dice uphill three miles in the snow, and we liked it! We hadda make graf paper outta terlit paper, dat is when we had da dang terlit paper!"
Seriously though. Miniatures and maps (big sheets of paper or dry erase boards) have been a part of my gaming since at least the late 80's. We measured out battles and reach using those silly loophole ridden 2nd ed rules.
Yeah you could make a character sheet on a 4x6 index card with another as a treasure list (or spell book) but really, was that a character? Old characters, though I love them (through the 'rose colored glasses'), were pretty pigeon-holed.
There's way more customization that is actually rules based instead of a 'gimme' house rule because you came up with a good background and character description. (Which is pretty much what you're SUPPOSED to do anyway.)
I'm still learning the 3.5 rules. So I don't have alot of available commentary yet.
When I didn't use Weapon Speed as a DM, the players seemed to be swinging a lot of Bastard and Two-Handed swords. When we started using Weapon Speed the Bastard Swords were replaced by a mix of long swords, short swords, and daggers, and Two-Handed Swords were the exclusive domain of the heavy.
The learning experience when we started using Weapons Speed was that the lone goblin was always getting a nick in before being dispatched. Once they dropped down to Short Swords, they were killing the goblin first and staying fresh for the pit trap.
Without Weapon Speed, or some equivalent, it strikes me that people would favour heavy weapons since there is no longer that choice to hedge their bet in who hits first. The high-crit/small-weapon idea is a bit of a balancer... But, I prefer the idea of sacrificing capacity for damage to gain the efficiency to do it early.
Does the system have provisions for that?
As has been said before, the past editions often seem better because you were introduced on them and had your exploratory, developmental, formative adventures in them. Not to, mention, in most memories, people remember the good and forget/ overlook the bad.
For one so young you can exhibit a lot of wisdom
D&D 3.x is better than the older editions. From the first edition I was using maps and counters (whether they be coins, dice, bits of paper or miniatures. Yes the combat rules are geared toward miniature grid based combat, but that simplifies things for me leaving my imagination free. A good dm could do without the grid map, but that will leave a lot for the DMs arbitrary ruling, that for wme makes things complicated and why I believe the grid map based combat makes things simpler.
Against hordes of generic creatures, I doN't use the battle grid. I tell the players to assume that flanking occures when there's an even number of adversaries against the same foe. I also tell the players that all the creatures have the SAME initiative number, I tell them the attack bonus, the damage, and the AC of the enemies, and let them go at it alone for one round at a time. I found that this method saves bundles of time against a pack of 'ordinary', say, orcs.
I always use the battle grid for everything else... And, yes, I find it slow and teadeous sometimes.
Ultradan
|
|
I've played basic D&D, AD&D, 2nd Ed, and the often forgotten Skills and powers version, since I was 9 so I grew up with the changes - each time the game got a little better with every new addition. 3.0 made a huge leap in the right direction for me though.
One of the most common problems with the previous editions was interpretations between players and DM's. I used to be organiser for a local roleplaying club and around the time 2nd edition came out we started to get a large influx of younger players - due to the difference of opinions between the older players and the new we had to split the groups into two. since most of the newer where young and still learning, the older willing to embrace 2nd ed ran the games. Of the most common arguments around the 3 tables visual interpretation was top.
3.0 provides a solid foundation for what I feel was mostly lacking in previous editions, a set combat format which allowed players the flexability to "try something new".
However, since playing 3.5 its become more prevelent that the old school players find it hard to grasp the benefits of combat options such as trip, grapple, sunder, and disarm, etc.
Anyhow I digress from my original reason for posting...
One thing I really hate about 3.X is the way it handles equipment and magic item creation.
Equipment, while listed, is glossed over in such a fashion that people ignore it altogether. things like rations and torches are still used but other items are ignored due to the lack of information presented. to me Equipment is a crucial part of building you character and yet still 3.X relies on basic sets of armor (rather than embracing options like piece mail) and weapons that dont match historical references.
and lets not forget about wear and tear. a character could wear the same armor, clothes and use the same weapon from 1st to 20th without ever worrying about things like rust, rips, and the like. only when you are actually attacked with options like sunder does it come into play.
Part of this I think is due to the huge price difference between magic items and mundane. once a character leaves 2nd level he pretty much ignores all mundane items for magical ones. And again I blame the lack of wear and tear rules for this fact too.
Regarding Magic items they are priced far too high and the way They use a multiplication system to increase the cost doesnt fit well with the level progression system.
Looking at it from a numbers point of view, a character levels at a rate of 1+1 while magic items are priced at a rate of 1x1.
so levels progress 1,2,3,4,5,6,etc while magic items progress 1,2,4,8,16,32,etc.
by the teen levels characters have funds available in everyday items so high that a fighters +5 sword could purchase him a small kingdom and yet they expect to be able to sell off excess +5 items like they where candy!
Overall I like 3.5 but I wish they had spent a little more time looking at the implications of magic items and mundane equipment and its effect on the game, rather than simply throwing old numbers at it.
If you ask me, +5 swords (50,000 gp) is where it starts to get difficult to find buyers for your excess equipment. I think that by the rules you have to go to a metropolis (City of Greyhawk, Waterdeep, Sharn) to buy or sell anything up to 100,000 gp, and above that you're basically out of luck unless you have some particularly good contacts.
I guess the idea behind making gold piece values extend so fast is that you'll be able to afford two or three +1 swords before you can afford a +2 sword; otherwise you would be pooling your gold to buy a magic item that's beyond your level.
|
|
If you ask me, +5 swords (50,000 gp) is where it starts to get difficult to find buyers for your excess equipment. I think that by the rules you have to go to a metropolis (City of Greyhawk, Waterdeep, Sharn) to buy or sell anything up to 100,000 gp, and above that you're basically out of luck unless you have some particularly good contacts.
I guess the idea behind making gold piece values extend so fast is that you'll be able to afford two or three +1 swords before you can afford a +2 sword; otherwise you would be pooling your gold to buy a magic item that's beyond your level.
your right on the button with the magic items compariatble to cheaper magic items but why does it have to be so far from mundane items. a +5 sword may only be 50,000 but what about that +5 flaming or +5 scimitar of speed... as a +10 item the scimitar has a cost of 200,000 base!
masterwork items is the main problem IMO - why are they so much more than standard items. a MW longsword is 315. or you could kit out a small army with shortswords for the same price. having masterwork value set at +300 (+150 for armor) is the start of the problem in my opinion. the next logical step would be 1,000 to prevent people as you say pooling their gold to buy a magic item that's beyond their level.
Wouldnt it be better to have Masterwork items at +100 (+50 for armor) thats still worth 5 normal longswords. Then you could set +1 magic items to +300 gp (+100 for being masterwork too) then perhaps 1,000 for +2 and so on. It puts magic items closer to non-magical items.
Also it reduces the amount of dependancy the game has on gold coinage at the moment. in the past copper and silver pieces were handed out as standard treasure - players would only use gold to reduce the weight and bulk. platinum pieces where rare. now gold is the standard with platinum used to reduce weight and gems used by those who have lots of treasure.
I also dislike (personally) the idea of a magic item market. with such a high turnover in comparison to many non-magical commodities the idea that someone would become a farmer is laughable. sure its a "needed" commodity but its not a good way to make a living.
Take a comparision based on skills...
a trained farmer can earn half his check in gold a week(roughly 7 gp a week based on take 10 and 4 ranks). If he was a high level farmer he could earn 20 gp.
A magic item merchant would be making 500+ gp a day from the sale of a +1 weapon. but as his adventuring contacts gain levels (faster than the farmer) they are turning over +3 items making the merchant 8,000+ gp a day! sure hes not gonna make a regular income but if a merchants intelligent he will go where the adventurers go. making sure to keep good business close by, I mean hes even got the money spare to travel or to hire adventurers to find magic items for him!
I'm not saying the system is wrong from a balance point of view, I'm saying its wrong from a roleplaying, realism point of view.
At high level, 3.5 combat is difficult to run because of the massive creature stat blocks and all the buff spells and effects you have to remember. I got some good advice on another thread about the very same topic and it's going better now. I still miss the simplicity of 1e/2e DM game prep....but having said that:
The inconsistency and chaotic rule system that was 1e/2e caused me to quit playing D&D--bottom line.
I never intended to come back to it--we were using a homebrewed bastardized rule system based on Rolemaster/Spacemaster and FASA Star Trek to run our occasional RPG session between the time I quit D&D in 2002 to the time that we came back to it full force in late 2004.
I read the 3.5 rules in the PH in 2004 finally and realized what a gem the rules were--my entire gaming group of seven people went back to playing D&D just because of 3.5...I guess I can't say it clearer than that.
1e/2e was just as much fun, but I think we could have attracted more people to the hobby back in its heyday if the rules had been as elegant and consistent as they are now. Nothing will ever be perfect, of course, but overall they're better.