3E shortcomings

[Harold Mayo]

Am I the only guy who doesn't think that 3E just isn't all that great?

I love the internal consistency provided by the d20 system. I love the way that multiclassing is handled. I like the general streamlining of the game. I LOVE the breakdown of some class skills into generalized skills that anyone can take (I prefer a skill-based game to an "archetype" game but haven't found one that satisfies me so I stick with D&D).

HOWEVER...

1) I really dislike that it is really promotes min-maxing. Even the "official" stuff feeds off of it (note the little "Power Play" asides in DRAGON magazine). Optimizing a character is fine, but it goes too far to actively promote this, IMO.

2) It gives the tendency to create "super-characters" because of the abuse of the min-maxing potential. Instead of a nice fantasy combat like might be seen in (for example) the Fellowship of the Ring movie (where characters struggle), you end up with something more akin to a fight out of a cheesy martial arts movie. This is really, sort of, a continuation of (1) above but it's a separate gripe in my mind.

3) It encourages mapping out the progress of a character from 1st level onward. This may not be a bad thing for some people, but I, as a player AND as a DM, would prefer to let my character's experiences in the game shape his development rather than KNOWING that I am going to take this or that prestige class at a certain level or that I am going to multiclass at level x so that I can gain special ability y.

4) Feats are a neat idea but they aren't really done "right". I REALLY like the feats that a lot of OGL companies are coming out with that are regional, cultural, or racial in nature. I REALLy like that because I never did like the sheer equality of older editions of AD&D. I was overjoyed when the Player's Option books came out and there were traits and disadvantages given as official rules. Feats are great but are, under the current rules, more for combatative purposes than for anything else. Since fighters gain more feats than anyone else, they can, potentially have more neat things from their "background" than any other character. The problem is that the feats were really designed more around enhancing the abilities of the character classes, especially fighters, than for adding "color" to the game and the system falls flat on its face when trying to use feats for this purpose.

5) 3E has the "feel" of a computer game. Simplistic and enabling you to gain a lot of power quickly. 3E has been out for three years? Is that right? Have to check on that, but it seems about right. I have heard more people talk about 20th level characters since the 3E rules came out than EVER in all of my 24 years of playing D&D put together. It "feels" like Baldur's Gate or Icewind Dale more than pen & paper role-playing. I heard a rumor that this was actually what the designers were shooting for since computer games have bitten into the pen & paper rpg market share so much that they felt that they needed something to lure them in. Don't know if it's true but, if it is, they sure succeeded.

I don't know if I'll ever switch over to 3E (or, darn it, 3.5E). If I do, I'll have to do a lot of changing. I've already done that when 1st edition went to 2nd and when 2nd got the Player's Option and DM's Option stuff. I can see advantages in doing it over the long run, but I just have SO MUCH material that I would have to alter.

Ah, well...anyone else have the same complaints? If so, how have you dealt with the perceived problems?

 

[Dr. NRG]

I don't know if I'll ever switch over to 3E...

If you try it, you may like it. You may not, but you'll at least have more of a sound basis for criticism, I would venture to guess...

NRG

 

[DDK]

1st ed. rules, 3rd ed. drools!

I didn't deal with it because 3rd ed. SUCKS! Instead, I stayed in my little cubby-hole and performed sacrifices to Jack Chick! (he still hasn't answered... but I know he will because he said the spells were real!)

All people who play third edition are computer game playing weirdoes who don't know what it's like to build up a character over twenty years through ROLE PLAYING ALONE!

I never get into combat because combat is for amatuers and ROLL-players.

That's why I prefer 1st edition. It's the ORIGINAL and BESTEST EVER and can't be beat 'cause the Man himself made it!

That's why you should come on over to a better place, a place where you'll belong, a place where all the REAL roleplayers go, where everybody knows your edition... www.dragonsfoot.org

We'll be waiting to welcome you with open arms and stats for the cavalier class!

 

[Ranger REG]

HOWEVER...

1) I really dislike that it is really promotes min-maxing. Even the "official" stuff feeds off of it (note the little "Power Play" asides in DRAGON magazine). Optimizing a character is fine, but it goes too far to actively promote this, IMO.

If you want to submit articles about how to role-play without min-maxing, you are welcome to do so.

2) It gives the tendency to create "super-characters" because of the abuse of the min-maxing potential. Instead of a nice fantasy combat like might be seen in (for example) the Fellowship of the Ring movie (where characters struggle), you end up with something more akin to a fight out of a cheesy martial arts movie. This is really, sort of, a continuation of (1) above but it's a separate gripe in my mind.

AFAIC, Dungeons & Dragons is a generic fantasy role-playing game ruleset, not LOTR. It's up to the DM to decide what kind of campaign he wishes to run, and in my experience, not everyone prefers LOTR style of gameplay ... some but not everyone.

Personally, I don't like a ruleset that tells me what kind of game I should play.

3) It encourages mapping out the progress of a character from 1st level onward. This may not be a bad thing for some people, but I, as a player AND as a DM, would prefer to let my character's experiences in the game shape his development rather than KNOWING that I am going to take this or that prestige class at a certain level or that I am going to multiclass at level x so that I can gain special ability y.

AFAIK, prestige classes are NOT standard rules. Why do you think it's presented in the DMG?

If you, the DM, want to introduce prestige classes in your campaign, by all means go ahead. If not, then that's great too.

4) Feats are a neat idea but they aren't really done "right". I REALLY like the feats that a lot of OGL companies are coming out with that are regional, cultural, or racial in nature. I REALLy like that because I never did like the sheer equality of older editions of AD&D. I was overjoyed when the Player's Option books came out and there were traits and disadvantages given as official rules. Feats are great but are, under the current rules, more for combatative purposes than for anything else. Since fighters gain more feats than anyone else, they can, potentially have more neat things from their "background" than any other character. The problem is that the feats were really designed more around enhancing the abilities of the character classes, especially fighters, than for adding "color" to the game and the system falls flat on its face when trying to use feats for this purpose.

First off, I never like disadvantage. It's just an excuse for min-maxers and powergamers to get freebie points. Most rules that offers advantage/disadvantage only promote further min-maxing.

The best way to portray disadvantage is through voluntary roleplaying, not through game mechanics in exchange for freebies.

For regional and cultural feats, once again D&D is a generic core ruleset. I prefer that campaign sourcebook offers regional and cultural feats that matches the fantasy world the PC's will be playing.

But then, that is the beauty of d20: to allow other publishers to contribute to the system by offering new game mechanics such as feats. As long as the DM approve of such feats, you can port them over from other d20 game.

5) 3E has the "feel" of a computer game. Simplistic and enabling you to gain a lot of power quickly. 3E has been out for three years? Is that right? Have to check on that, but it seems about right. I have heard more people talk about 20th level characters since the 3E rules came out than EVER in all of my 24 years of playing D&D put together. It "feels" like Baldur's Gate or Icewind Dale more than pen & paper role-playing. I heard a rumor that this was actually what the designers were shooting for since computer games have bitten into the pen & paper rpg market share so much that they felt that they needed something to lure them in. Don't know if it's true but, if it is, they sure succeeded.

So some people have a lot more free times than they can count on their hands? Big deal.

Then again, there are some who converted their characters from previous editions to 3e. 3e may have been around for nearly three years but D&D has been around since the late 1970's. I have seen PC up in the level 40's that have undergone conversion from 1e to 2e to 2e Revised and now 3e.

(Whatever you think of those players with high-level PCs, keep it to yourself. The fact that they still play D&D shows some dedication to their RPG hobby.)

I don't know if I'll ever switch over to 3E (or, darn it, 3.5E). If I do, I'll have to do a lot of changing. I've already done that when 1st edition went to 2nd and when 2nd got the Player's Option and DM's Option stuff. I can see advantages in doing it over the long run, but I just have SO MUCH material that I would have to alter.

You can retire them and just start fresh. Then again, you don't have to. It's not like I have a gun to your head forcing you to buy 3e or 3.5e.

(Hehehe. With such nice visual, I know I'll sleep well tonight. )

Ah, well...anyone else have the same complaints? If so, how have you dealt with the perceived problems?

My perceived problem probably have to do with the whining. To the whiners I say ... if you don't like, don't buy it.

But if you do, then by all means contribute. As great as 3e, you can never find a complete ruleset that will resolve anything you may encounter in the game, like a unique situation.

 

[Korin Tempest]

you may not want to knock 3e until you've tried it.. granted the min/maxing can get ridiculous, you'll get that in almost any rpg when the players are actually prone to do that.. and with the whole 20th level characters being all over the place... with earlier editions of the game, in my experience, campaigns tended to end around 12th level, with most encounters not even remotely being a challenge anymore, the game tended to lose the excitement...

 

[Mithriltooth]

I love 3E (ive also been playing 20+ years). The whole d20 thing is excellent and well balanced, IMO. You bring out some valid points but the potential character varieties is endless.

The old THACO and Saving Throws (while nice for it's time) were way more...... generic in a sense, with multiple characters having a similar saving throw or To hit roll needed. 3E has fixed this in more than one way with the new combat system Even saving throws make more sense now while narrowed down to only 3 categories.

The skill rules are vastly superior to the old Proficiencies. Why couldnt all characters of old try to be sneaky with skills like Hiding, or even find a simple trap? Of course Rogues may have better chances at hiding or finding traps than others, but who's to say that the wary Fighter cant have a sharp eye and maybe see a loose plate in the floor ? or even a Mage trying to sneak up using Hide, on a small band of Goblins with a prepared Sleep spell?

The Feats I like as well. Every 3rd level is fair and the Fighter is now just as popular as a Ranger or Paladin because of Feats now. In the 20+ years that Ive been playing (mostly as a DM), most of my players only liked the straight Fighter when Multi-Classing. Single Class Rangers or Paladins were almost always favored above the lowly Fighter. Class specific feats as well as Metamagic feats seem very thought out.

As for ability scores... how many characters have you seen in your d&d history take little stock in the Charisma ability score in favor of abilities like Strength or Constitution?
3E has made every single ability score important and equally vital. Fighters might be looking for Higher Wisdoms scores for Wil saves, Clerics, Bards, and Sorcerers now depend on a high Charisma score.
And even Monsters have full ability scores now with differing Saving Throw mods as well as their own skills. Alot of possibilities here.
Gaining an ability point every 4 levels is great too. Characters may get wiser, stronger,more agile etc. with practice and experience.

Multi-Classing in 3E is better than any other edition ever was, I think many people agree here.

As for people planning their characters careers in advance, nothing is set in stone. They may later change their mind about becoming a certain Prestige Class in favor of a different one.

The only thing that I have seen that is slightly Unbalanced in 3E is the Elemental Archon prestige class from Magic Of Faerun. Theoretically at 5th or 6th level a character may become an Archon and get a Triad of 3HD Mephits (along with all their abilities) at his disposal. To balance this all I had to do was tweak it slightly.

3E is the best yet,IMO.

 

[Harold Mayo]

It's rather amusing that people don't actually read posts but only the headings. Only one guy really addressed points of my post.

It's also amusing that I'm told that I should play it before I am critical.

I wouldn't have been critical if I hadn't tried it.

Converting hundreds of pages of campaign material compiled over the 19 years that I have put into the creation of my gaming world is just a daunting task, especially given some of the shortcomings that I noted. My streamlined 2E rules really do pretty much everything that 3E does, though in different ways, mostly.

I just struggle with the thought of diverging from the "official" rules (not that any part of the game or rules can't be altered at will) just when someone FINALLY did the right thing and opened up the creation and publishing of gaming material to pretty much anyone. That has been needed for a long, long time. With certain exceptions, D&D has been in need of fresh ideas and new blood for many years. The OGL has solved that problem in a glorious fashion but 3E still needs some tweaking to give the "feel" of AD&D.

 

[DDK]

Lowest form of wit: Off

The OGL has solved that problem in a glorious fashion but 3E still needs some tweaking to give the "feel" of AD&D.

I truly, truly, deeply, madly hope and pray that that day never comes. Like a great, fantastic, deific man once said at a Winter Fantasy, far, far gone, in reference to 3.5ed "We are making 3e more like 3e..."

Go Skip, go!

 

[Corinth]

Too much dependance upon external items--magical or not--and not enough reliance upon internal character abilities is still a big sticking point for me. I'd like to see both the Reputation rules and the class-based AC bonuses from d20 Modern brought over to D&D, though I'd prefer that this not happen for a while yet so that it can be properly tested and implemented. That'd go a long way towards rectifying the imbalance.

 

[hong]

Am I the only guy who doesn't think that 3E just isn't all that great?

No.


Hong "this is sooo 2000" Ooi