EverDarkness
First Post
I'm writing a paper on this for my argument class. Aside from Clerics being over powered what would you guys say are the major problems with 3rd Edition?
3rd Edition's Major problems: What are the basic ones?
- Thread starter EverDarkness
- Start date
ColonelHardisson
What? Me Worry?
I think this thread is better off in the General Discussion forum; it'll get a lot more traffic there. However, I have to warn you - this topic has sparked what seems like an infinite number of flame wars on these and other boards on the internet, ever since 3e came out (and before, actually). So I'd suggest to watch it very closely and derail any potential fights before they actually flare up, or the thread will get shut down quickly.
I can't say for sure what the major problems are; this is a very subjective thing. For every supposed weakness, there will be any number of defenders of that weakness, who see it as a strength, or see no problem at all.
Perhaps that's it's major weakness - D&D 3e/d20 is the most widely played RPG. It can't be all things to all people, so it will always be the most widely criticized RPG, due to how much scrutiny it's under.
I can't say for sure what the major problems are; this is a very subjective thing. For every supposed weakness, there will be any number of defenders of that weakness, who see it as a strength, or see no problem at all.
Perhaps that's it's major weakness - D&D 3e/d20 is the most widely played RPG. It can't be all things to all people, so it will always be the most widely criticized RPG, due to how much scrutiny it's under.
Celebrim
Legend
Well, I expect this thread to get moved in a bit, then you will probably have more answers than you can handle, BUT, I'll get a word or three in edge wise before that happens.
1) PrC's break the 'rules' of classes in several ways, throw of CR calculations, tend to promote sterotyping, are hard or impossible to play test and balance, and probably should have never been added to the game system. (Won't be fixed. To many people like them.)
2) Rangers, Paladins, and Barbarians retain too much specific flavor to be accounted core classes and need a large revision. (Potentially fixed in 3.5 but I doubt it)
3) The CR/EL/ECL system assumes a degree of linearity which just isn't present. At high levels, one level of difference does not equate to the same as one level of difference at low levels. Nor is a a 8 CR creature merely 4 times as dangerous as a 2 CR creature. Rules dealing with the concept in greater depth need to be devised. CR is relative to level and you can't avoid that, no matter how absolute you want to pretend it is. (Won't be fixed. Solution is too complex, and it may be years before a sufficiently elegant one suggests itself to someone.)
4) The specialist wizard system in which the various schools where balanced against each other presumes core rules only. That was very short sighted, as it should have been obvious from the beginning that a huge number of spells would rapidly become available for every school and eventually lead to parity. (Hopefully will be fixed, but I doubt it.)
5) The rules on taking 10 and taking 20 were not clear enough (supposedly fixed in 3.5).
6) Profession skills were overlooked and should have been further detailed, as were certain craft/knowledge/profession overlaps and synergies with each other and other skills.
7) Various minor balance issues were overlooked initially (Most appear to be addressed by 3.5).
8) Double weapons are mostly kinda silly. Of the realistic ones, quarter staff got the shaft, and spiked chain doesn't have realistic enough drawbacks (though I suppose it is fine for the cinematic style)
9) Backgrounds, advantages, disadvantages, and so forth would go a long ways toward finally fleshing D&D character creation out fully. Unfortunately, even though this is a natural high priority more focus has been put into PrC's and new Feats and new spells than anything else and most of the rules on this subject are house rules or else are in fairly obscure tomes - and most of those are badly thought out. Sooner or later someone is going to collect the best ideas from various house rules, clean them up and streamline them and produce the uber D20 character creation guide.
10) Range increments for missile weapons are usually unrealisticly long.
1) PrC's break the 'rules' of classes in several ways, throw of CR calculations, tend to promote sterotyping, are hard or impossible to play test and balance, and probably should have never been added to the game system. (Won't be fixed. To many people like them.)
2) Rangers, Paladins, and Barbarians retain too much specific flavor to be accounted core classes and need a large revision. (Potentially fixed in 3.5 but I doubt it)
3) The CR/EL/ECL system assumes a degree of linearity which just isn't present. At high levels, one level of difference does not equate to the same as one level of difference at low levels. Nor is a a 8 CR creature merely 4 times as dangerous as a 2 CR creature. Rules dealing with the concept in greater depth need to be devised. CR is relative to level and you can't avoid that, no matter how absolute you want to pretend it is. (Won't be fixed. Solution is too complex, and it may be years before a sufficiently elegant one suggests itself to someone.)
4) The specialist wizard system in which the various schools where balanced against each other presumes core rules only. That was very short sighted, as it should have been obvious from the beginning that a huge number of spells would rapidly become available for every school and eventually lead to parity. (Hopefully will be fixed, but I doubt it.)
5) The rules on taking 10 and taking 20 were not clear enough (supposedly fixed in 3.5).
6) Profession skills were overlooked and should have been further detailed, as were certain craft/knowledge/profession overlaps and synergies with each other and other skills.
7) Various minor balance issues were overlooked initially (Most appear to be addressed by 3.5).
8) Double weapons are mostly kinda silly. Of the realistic ones, quarter staff got the shaft, and spiked chain doesn't have realistic enough drawbacks (though I suppose it is fine for the cinematic style)
9) Backgrounds, advantages, disadvantages, and so forth would go a long ways toward finally fleshing D&D character creation out fully. Unfortunately, even though this is a natural high priority more focus has been put into PrC's and new Feats and new spells than anything else and most of the rules on this subject are house rules or else are in fairly obscure tomes - and most of those are badly thought out. Sooner or later someone is going to collect the best ideas from various house rules, clean them up and streamline them and produce the uber D20 character creation guide.
10) Range increments for missile weapons are usually unrealisticly long.
Sir Whiskers
First Post
Some rambling thoughts: One way to approach this question is to compare DnD with software (MS Windows and Office, specifically).
The greatest virtue of 3E is that it's "DnD", which for many of us, was our first roleplaying experience. DnD is familiar, comfortable. But it also brings along all sorts of baggage: levels, classes, hit points, arcane/divine magic, clerics as healers, experience for killing things, etc. It would be difficult to design a system that is true to the core of DnD, while still avoiding numerous balance and verisimilitude issues. Perhaps most critically, dealing with these issues makes the 3E system more complex than necessary, from a purely game-design standpoint (just look at the mystic theurge) - and all that complexity makes the task of introducing new players more difficult than it should be.
So you have much the same situation as Microsoft: you have to keep the "installed base" happy by providing backwards compatibility, but doing so makes the system unwieldy. Microsoft, however, has the advantage that it's very difficult to escape their products (even Linux is not a realistic alternative for the vast majority of users and companies). At selected points, they've broken free of their legacy software (as has much of 3E), yet it's still Windows in look and feel. It's also still buggy, unsecure, and expensive.
DnD has plenty of competition, but is still currently *the* system of choice. The more unwieldy and complex this system, though, the smaller the number of players. The smaller the number of players, the less economical it is to maintain the system. If more players leave DnD than new players enter, you have a problem. I don't believe DnD is in a "death spiral" as yet, but I can easily visualize 3E drowning in complexity and sacred cows, in much the same way 2E did.
By the way, I see at least one way out of this problem: embrace technology. Who cares how complex character creation is, if I can purchase a program that walks me through it in minutes? Who cares how many combat modifiers there are, if a combat program can perform all the calculations in the fraction of a second, without slowing down play. In many way, despite the advances of the 3E system, DnD feels like DOS - it works, but you have to be a "guru" to figure it all out. Maybe what 3E needs most is the RP version of a GUI.
The greatest virtue of 3E is that it's "DnD", which for many of us, was our first roleplaying experience. DnD is familiar, comfortable. But it also brings along all sorts of baggage: levels, classes, hit points, arcane/divine magic, clerics as healers, experience for killing things, etc. It would be difficult to design a system that is true to the core of DnD, while still avoiding numerous balance and verisimilitude issues. Perhaps most critically, dealing with these issues makes the 3E system more complex than necessary, from a purely game-design standpoint (just look at the mystic theurge) - and all that complexity makes the task of introducing new players more difficult than it should be.
So you have much the same situation as Microsoft: you have to keep the "installed base" happy by providing backwards compatibility, but doing so makes the system unwieldy. Microsoft, however, has the advantage that it's very difficult to escape their products (even Linux is not a realistic alternative for the vast majority of users and companies). At selected points, they've broken free of their legacy software (as has much of 3E), yet it's still Windows in look and feel. It's also still buggy, unsecure, and expensive.
DnD has plenty of competition, but is still currently *the* system of choice. The more unwieldy and complex this system, though, the smaller the number of players. The smaller the number of players, the less economical it is to maintain the system. If more players leave DnD than new players enter, you have a problem. I don't believe DnD is in a "death spiral" as yet, but I can easily visualize 3E drowning in complexity and sacred cows, in much the same way 2E did.
By the way, I see at least one way out of this problem: embrace technology. Who cares how complex character creation is, if I can purchase a program that walks me through it in minutes? Who cares how many combat modifiers there are, if a combat program can perform all the calculations in the fraction of a second, without slowing down play. In many way, despite the advances of the 3E system, DnD feels like DOS - it works, but you have to be a "guru" to figure it all out. Maybe what 3E needs most is the RP version of a GUI.
Similar Threads
