Critique of 3E.
- Thread starter Joker
- Start date
kengar
First Post
Strictly IMHO, YMMV, etc. etc. -
Good Points:
-Accessibility: Folks who have never played an RPG can be up & running with a character and playing an adventure all in an evening. There are not many systems for which that is true.
-Publishing Quality: The WotC 3e books are more professionally done that a lot of previous RPG materials. Cleaner layout, better artwork, etc.
-OGL: the open license of the d20 system has given gamers a HUGE assortment of material to choose from. To quote Bruce Lee, "Absorb what is useful, discard the rest."
-Balance: The writers did a great job of balancing the player classes and races, for the most part. One or two could have been better, but nothing crippling or overpowering.
Bad Points:
-Editing: Despite the overall quality of the material on the core books, they could have stood some better editing regarding organization of materials. Too often a rule is explained, but in a totally different section of the book. That, or phrasing is left ambiguous on exactly what the writers intended with a rule.
-Legacies: A few mechanics that carried over from earlier editions and DnD's wargaming origins which, frankly, could have been improved upon; armor making you harder to hit v. absorbing damage, the nebulous nature of hit points, squares v. hexes, over-emphasis on combat, etc. All these things still work since it's the same for everyone in the game, but are bit abstact and make it harder to immerse yourself in the action.
3e is a good system and I prefer it over many other systems, but it does have its quirks and flaws like anything else. Of course, that which I criticize, someone else may applaud.
Good Points:
-Accessibility: Folks who have never played an RPG can be up & running with a character and playing an adventure all in an evening. There are not many systems for which that is true.
-Publishing Quality: The WotC 3e books are more professionally done that a lot of previous RPG materials. Cleaner layout, better artwork, etc.
-OGL: the open license of the d20 system has given gamers a HUGE assortment of material to choose from. To quote Bruce Lee, "Absorb what is useful, discard the rest."
-Balance: The writers did a great job of balancing the player classes and races, for the most part. One or two could have been better, but nothing crippling or overpowering.
Bad Points:
-Editing: Despite the overall quality of the material on the core books, they could have stood some better editing regarding organization of materials. Too often a rule is explained, but in a totally different section of the book. That, or phrasing is left ambiguous on exactly what the writers intended with a rule.
-Legacies: A few mechanics that carried over from earlier editions and DnD's wargaming origins which, frankly, could have been improved upon; armor making you harder to hit v. absorbing damage, the nebulous nature of hit points, squares v. hexes, over-emphasis on combat, etc. All these things still work since it's the same for everyone in the game, but are bit abstact and make it harder to immerse yourself in the action.
3e is a good system and I prefer it over many other systems, but it does have its quirks and flaws like anything else. Of course, that which I criticize, someone else may applaud.
Eternalknight
First Post
Kengar: You state that hit points and the way armor works are some of the bad aspects of 3rd edition. I posted in another thread saying that, should these things (as well as some other aspects, specifically magic and class system) be changed the game would no longer be D&D.
That said, I agree with everything else you said
That said, I agree with everything else you said
kengar
First Post
Well, EK, I understand your point about AC & HP; they are an original part of D&D. But I still feel that something could have been done to address the weaknesses in these mechanics.
I have no real problem with armor helping to turn a blow, I just think some DR is appropriate as well. In some other game systems, certain armor types can provide both kinds of protection, others only AC, others still only DR. People can House-Rule this fairly easily if they want, but it still could have been addressed at least as a variant rule.
My problem with HP (abeit a small one) is that, despite the book's vague mention of "rolling with punches" etc. to explain how HP continue to increase with experience, there is no real distinction between this kind of HP (damage avoidance) and actual "Wounds." I would have liked to have seen some attempt to distinguish between an 8th level fighter missnig 7hp and a 1st level fighter down by the same number. Both are still at positive HP and "fully functional." Both can be "healed" by a CLW spell or potion; but is the 8th level fighter actually "wounded" or did he just have to dodge around a bit? Or did he just "suck it up?" It's just a little vague is all.
The system works. I just think (again IMHO) it could have been done a little better.
I have no real problem with armor helping to turn a blow, I just think some DR is appropriate as well. In some other game systems, certain armor types can provide both kinds of protection, others only AC, others still only DR. People can House-Rule this fairly easily if they want, but it still could have been addressed at least as a variant rule.
My problem with HP (abeit a small one) is that, despite the book's vague mention of "rolling with punches" etc. to explain how HP continue to increase with experience, there is no real distinction between this kind of HP (damage avoidance) and actual "Wounds." I would have liked to have seen some attempt to distinguish between an 8th level fighter missnig 7hp and a 1st level fighter down by the same number. Both are still at positive HP and "fully functional." Both can be "healed" by a CLW spell or potion; but is the 8th level fighter actually "wounded" or did he just have to dodge around a bit? Or did he just "suck it up?" It's just a little vague is all.
The system works. I just think (again IMHO) it could have been done a little better.
Last edited:
Green Knight
First Post
This is the reason why I like the Wound/Vitality rule for the Star Wars RPG so much.
One major thing I really dislike about 3e is the over-emphasis on magic items.
Also, 3e is extremely simple in some cases and in a lot of cases it is really hard to believe certain things that happen. Such as a massive dragon landing on you and you receiving 4d8+19 pts of damage.
Oh yeah, item creation feats are addictive. Well, not the feats but what you can do with them.
Also, 3e is extremely simple in some cases and in a lot of cases it is really hard to believe certain things that happen. Such as a massive dragon landing on you and you receiving 4d8+19 pts of damage.
Oh yeah, item creation feats are addictive. Well, not the feats but what you can do with them.
Ridley's Cohort
First Post
Joker said:
Funny, my experience is there are many fewer powerful magic items in 3e than a similar character levels in 1e/2e. 3e makes weak magic cheap and accessible, strong magic is harder to come by. You also level more quickly so it piles up slowly relative to your inherent abilities.
Weaknesses of 3e:
--explanation of AoOs
--explanation of the differences/similarities between standard actions, attacks, full attack, full action, full round action, one round action, partical actions, and ready actions.
--explanation of grappling rules
--PrCs: good concept, but mostly they look like unusual feats in search of a reason for being
