I Have A Problem With 3E

[Li Shenron]

Whether I agree or not, these are good points to bring up!

1. Multiclassing
AD&D was too strict. 3rd edition is too permissive. In AD&D you couldn't change professions unless you were human; that was a problem. In 3rd edition you can't help but change professions many times, including certain prestigious professions; this is also a problem.
Potential Solution: There needs to be a significant drawback to multiclassing while keeping it viable. Currently, the only drawback (XP penalty) is easily circumvented. Even when it isn't avoided, XP loss isn't fun.

This is very group-dependent for me. In our tabletop games, no one has ever multiclassed in more than 2 base classes and 1 prestige class. That sounds still very decent to me.

OTOH in oneline games, there's lots of players who focus more on character build than the actual adventures. It is sometimes irritating to see combat-types with 5-6 classes.

Maybe that's just me, but I don't buy the idea that "character concept" requires heavy multiclassing. I think that every concept can be covered by 1-2 classes at most if you have a large number enough of feats & spells, or eventually if you ask your DM for a VARIANT of the class in question. For some reason I cannot explain, people prefer to play with multiclassing (and often complain that they STILL can't get the perfect thing they wanted) rather than going straight for the target by creating a variant of the class with the DM.

Anyway, I agree with you that the XP penalty should have been designed better. It could have been SMALLER but EASIER (like e.g. 5% penalty for every class after the first, doesn't matter what level).

2. Free Metamagic
Metamagic as an idea is great. But there is a reason the designers gave it an opportunity cost in the form of a higher level spell slot. Wizards were not meant to maximize fireballs at 5th level and clerics weren't meant to chain greater magic weapon at 7th level. The current trend of metamagic rods, sudden metamagic feats, and other "free" metamagic effects gives spellcasters too much power.
Potential Solution: I think this aspect just needs to be removed from the game. Metamagic is fine. "Free" metamagic is not.

Agree completely. Metamagic is great for spontaneous casters, period.

There is no reason why metamagic MUST be good for every caster: spontaneous casters are all about flexibility, preparation-based casters are all about knowledge.

Of course, having an OPTION is good, but 3ed took IMHO a bad path when they decided to make metamagic (very nearly almost) just as good for preparation-based casters. And at the same time they DIDN'T do the same service to spontaneous casters with options to improve their spell knowledge (Extra Spell feat can not be seriously compared in usefulness).

It's not a matter of balance really, it's a matter of taking away someone's unique ROLE, and also not giving much in return. No wonder if there are nowadays probably more Warlocks than Sorcerers.

3. Synergy
I'm not talking about synergy bonuses from skills. I am talking about unintended consequences of mixing and matching sourcebooks. For example, if a dread necromancer (Heroes of Horror) takes the Tomb-Tainted Soul feat (Libris Mortis), he gets unlimited healing. Taken separately, neither of these abilities is overpowered. Taken together, they have synergy that is far greater than the power of their individual components, likely an oversight because the books had different development teams.
Potential Solution: Allow each player access to one sourcebook ONLY outside of the three core rulebooks. This prevents most forms of synergy. Of course it reduces player options so it is not an ideal solution.

Agree, but the best solution here is the DM.

4. Two-Handed Weapons
Because of the double bonus from Power Attack, floaty shields, and more beneficial Strength modifier, two-handed weapon wielders have become the staple of melee combat. Forgive me, but this is trite. Two-weapon fighters and sword-and-board style have become comparatively worthless relics in the game.
Potential Solution: (and this is vague) The game needs to support multiple fighting styles by providing viable options for each that don't heavily overshadow the others. Player's Handbook 2 goes a long way towards rectifying this problem, but I don't know if it goes far enough.

Agree partly. Fortunately I largely play 3.0 (so at least PA is much better) and I also always enforce my own control of magic item's availability for sale. I still think that even in 3.0 TWF is more costly than it's worth, but otherwise 2Handed and Sword&Board warriors are quite on par.

5. Balancing Per Encounter Instead of Per Day
This is a horrible idea because it propagates the notion that the world conforms itself to the power level of the player characters. Some encounters are meant to be tougher, and those encounters require greater resources. Others are meant to be more menial and require fewer resources. Properly gauging the difficulty of an encounter and balancing your resources is part of the strategy of D&D. Leave "per encounter" balancing in MMORPGs and keep D&D a strategic game, like it was meant to be. Or at least publish two versions.
Potential Solution: (another vague one) Characters should not be able to use their most powerful abilities without limit.

Well it's hard to say. Sometimes I want adventures where there is 1 encounter per WEEK, and sometimes I want a single scenario with lots of battles in a single day.

However I definitely enjoy how the game has multiple levels of strategy and resource management, hence I dislike almost every variant rule or option that eliminates one of those levels.

6. Neverending Buffs
Yet another thing that removes an element of strategy from the game. Clerics are particularly fond of these. Spells like magic vestment, greater magic weapon, and heroes' feast are virtual must-haves for clerics because they last practically all day, especially with extend spell. "Forget situational spells. Just memorize the ones that keep you perpetually powered-up!" That's bland.
Potential Solution: Reduce durations of spells like this, or add costly material or XP costs to reduce their frequency of use.

I don't know... if all buffs are short, people are still going to cast them shortly before combat, and it may actually become more boring than having a few of them cast in the morning and permanently added to your character sheet.

Clearly, long term buffs should be of less power than the short term ones.

7. Combat Expertise and Power Attack
These kinds of feats make the game a bit too complicated because of the constant calculation required. A 10th-level fighter with Power Attack has 11 attack options representing the various penalties he can take. A 10th-level fighter with Power Attack AND Combat Expertise has 66 attack options! And he is expected to quickly decide which course of action is best?
Potential Solution: Simplify these kinds of feats with a flat penalty and flat bonus. The decision for the player then becomes merely to use it or not.

I never had a problem with this (tho the 3.0 PA is way simpler than the 3.5 version). Usually we just choose a number without thinking too much about the exact probabilities...

8. Point Buy
As if we needed more excuses for players to focus on character creation as opposed to actually playing the game. The world isn't that fair. I don't know why we would expect our characters to be "equal" either (as if that ideal were even possible). Besides, it ruins the excitement of rolling up a really nice set of scores.
Potential Solution: Roll ability scores.

I like both ways. In a game with no munchkins I prefer rolling and accepting the results (just for fun), but otherwise point buy is safer from party inbalance.

9. Rerolls
Various class abilities that allow rerolls greatly reduce the amount of chance in the game. You aren't likely to roll very many 1s during a game session, and if you have one or two reroll abilities (luck domain, luck blade, fatespinner, etc.) you don't need to worry about them. As long as your character is powerfully built, you will almost never need to worry about pesky automatic failures. Additionally, these abilities are greater still in the hands of NPCs, who only usually need them for one battle.
Potential Solution: Don't allow rerolls to change the result of automatic successes or failures.

Just kindly ask the players not to take multiple abilities of this kind.

10. Magic Item Creation
It costs XP to make magic items. So my character unlearns things for succeeding at a task. How on earth does that make sense?
Potential Solution: Just drop the XP cost for magic item creation. It already costs your character a feat. Or make the creation of magic items difficult by requiring rare components that must be quested for.

For PC I think it works quite well. My possible only gripe is that you inevitably end up thinking in terms "I have to out and kill some orcs, so that I can finish crafting this item" :\

 

[Shades of Green]

1. Multiclassing
AD&D was too strict. 3rd edition is too permissive. In AD&D you couldn't change professions unless you were human; that was a problem. In 3rd edition you can't help but change professions many times, including certain prestigious professions; this is also a problem.
Potential Solution: There needs to be a significant drawback to multiclassing while keeping it viable. Currently, the only drawback (XP penalty) is easily circumvented. Even when it isn't avoided, XP loss isn't fun.

Another solution would be to increase the in-game requirements of multiclassing: a Wizard shouldn't gain a Fighter level without some VERY serious training, for the very least a multi-month "bootcamp": Someone who haven't fought much in his life would have to learn ALOT about fighting before becoming a Fighter. Gaining a level in a new class is different from gaining a level in the same class, as, instead of improving on what the character is already familiar with, the character is learning the basics of an entirely new field.

 

[starwed]

[this] is more about the concepts of 3rd edition that are problematic, as well as the broader implications this might have for 4th edition.

I don't get it. You say this, and then rattle off a list which contains problems with specific rules (#2, #4, #6, #8, & #10 have absolutely nothing to do with either the system or the design philosphy).

 

[greywulf]

Airwalkrr, good points all, and I think you've hit upon one problem with D&D as it is written now. One rule that still seems to be under-emphasised in the books it that everything is optional. The GM is expected to set restrictions, add limitations and put the controls into his own gameworld. Even the PHB is just a candystore where the GM can chop and change. You could run a campaign where the PCs can't be Druids, where only Elves can be Rangers or no Halfling could be a Rogue (for a change!). If some multi-class and feat combos are too powerful, don't allow them, or set heavy restrictions. What's over-powered for one gaming group might be spot on for another. D&D (especially with all the supplements) offers such a wide choice that it would be crazy to make every option readily available. If you play D&D like that, it's asking for a headache

I'll cover each point in turn.

1. Multiclassing
"Prestige" means just that. They have to be earned. Just filling the prerequisites isn't enough - that's machanics. You have to find a group to train you, earn the right to entry and gain their respect. The means every prestige class (barring obscure exceptions) should merit an adventure or two just to get through the door. If you're just giving prestige classes at-will, you're missing out on a lot of gaming opportunity and devaluing the word "Prestige". If you make that player work for his Arcane Archer class, it's worth more to him. It's a badge of honour, a status symbol. There's your restriction to entry, and reward.

2. Free Metamagic
I agree metamagic items are just plain silly. I don't allow 'em.

3. Synergy
I'm not sure about your solution, as synergy can be a good thing too. A blanket "only one book" rule is imposing artificial limits for the sake of the few imbalances that occur. I've seen some imbalances come from just mixing feats in the same book, or with those in the PHB, so it won't stop what it's trying to either.

My solution again goes back to point One. Feats have to be learned and earned. If that Dread Necromancer wants Tomb-Tainted Soul they have to work for it; they have to find some place that will taint their soul in that way. It's an adventure again, where the Feat is the reward for that character. Mabe hold back the feat slot for it to be filled when it's gained. Yes, it's powerful, but if it's gained at the potential cost of their soul then it's a fair trade

If you're letting players pick feats up from just anywhere, then you're missing gaming opportunities again.

4. Two-Handed Weapons
Again, restrict training. Maybe TWF is only taught in a cloistered martial school high in the mountains. Perhaps it used to be used by a demonic empire in the distant past, so all modern practitioners are hated and feared to the point where people clearly carrying two weapons can't even get a room for the night.

I agree that the Prerequisites are low as written. I've seen far too many TWF Sorcerers and Wizards to be plausible. We've House Ruled the prerequisites to "DEX 15, BAB +1" which stops most classes from taking it before 3rd level. That's an improvement.

5. Balancing Per Encounter Instead of Per Day
He're the thing. In role-playing, the world /does/ revolve around the player characters. It's their story, so they should be the centre of attention. That's not the problem, though.

The whole EL system is just plain daft. I'm sick to the teeth of the HD/CR/EL/LA/ECL thing; it's a badly put together kludge that should have been drowned at birth. I don't like that a "balanced encounter" means it takes 25% of resources. (I could get all political about US military perceptions influencing RPG design, but I won't). "Balanced" means there's a 50/50 chance of survival!!!! Yes, it's tough. That's what tactics and careful planning is for. A party of four 1-st level adventures clubbing a single Grimlock to death isn't heroic; it's cowardly slaughter, and has no place in my game.

Heroisim is those 4 1st-level adventurers taking on 8 grimlocks with a plan, and winning despite the odds.

Rant over. I feel better now.

6. Neverending Buffs
I think 3.5E fixed the worst of this by reducing the durations of most of the buff spells. That was a good change. So I think this one has pretty much been repaired now. The ones that are left still take a valuable spell slot, to I'm not too worried if they want to use Magic Vestment for an AC bonus for most of the day if it means they can't Speak with Dead (or whatever) in return.

I don't like buffs in magic items though; that's another one of those "game changing" things I try to stear clear of.

7. Combat Expertise and Power Attack
I like that, a lot. I like the tactical choices of whether to make sure the blow hits, or swing wild for a powerful hit. It's one of the better things added to D&D combat, and I welcome it. It's like Rolemaster's tactical use of OB to parry (add to your defensive bonus) or attack.

If the choices aren't that overwhelming. By 10th level, you're probably thinking in multiples of 5 anyway. Assuming your numbers are correct (I'm too lazy to check) that fighter will probably use 3 options with Power Attack - no change, -5, or -10. Same logic for Combat Expertise.

If the choices are complicated you can always jot on the character sheet a set of "standard" combat options for the character and just pick among them during combat. That would be quicker.

8. Point Buy
Roll ability score is the default for D&D, so I don't see the problem here.

In our games we use a standard array of 10,12,13,14,15,16 for character generation so all characters /are/ created equal

9. Rerolls
The rerolls are usually allowed once a day (or even once a week), so it's not something that comes into play every time, and fate will catch up with them at some point anyhow. Most say you have to take the result of the second roll whatever it is too, so the odds aren't quite as favourable as they first look either.

I don't think I've ever seen an NPC using one of these ablities (I've certainly never GM'd one), but if they did I've see it as a legitimate use of their class abilities. No problem there.


10. Magic Item Creation
I agree. XP cost for magic items doesn't make sense. The problem is that no one has yet found a better solution

I don't like that Magic Item Creation are feats at all; what's the point in having a feat that's only usable outside the game?! It's like having a "Going Shopping" feat!

I'd just say that making Magic Items is what Wizards and Clerics do; it's a class ability (at given levels) that means that after that level they can "buy" magic items of that type for half cost. After all, the Wizard list of class abilities is kinda sparse

 

[FireLance]

1. Multiclassing
"Prestige" means just that. They have to be earned. Just filling the prerequisites isn't enough - that's machanics. You have to find a group to train you, earn the right to entry and gain their respect. The means every prestige class (barring obscure exceptions) should merit an adventure or two just to get through the door. If you're just giving prestige classes at-will, you're missing out on a lot of gaming opportunity and devaluing the word "Prestige". If you make that player work for his Arcane Archer class, it's worth more to him. It's a badge of honour, a status symbol. There's your restriction to entry, and reward.

...

3. Synergy
I'm not sure about your solution, as synergy can be a good thing too. A blanket "only one book" rule is imposing artificial limits for the sake of the few imbalances that occur. I've seen some imbalances come from just mixing feats in the same book, or with those in the PHB, so it won't stop what it's trying to either.

My solution again goes back to point One. Feats have to be learned and earned. If that Dread Necromancer wants Tomb-Tainted Soul they have to work for it; they have to find some place that will taint their soul in that way. It's an adventure again, where the Feat is the reward for that character. Mabe hold back the feat slot for it to be filled when it's gained. Yes, it's powerful, but if it's gained at the potential cost of their soul then it's a fair trade

If you're letting players pick feats up from just anywhere, then you're missing gaming opportunities again.

Seriously, not everything has to be a gaming opportunity. A character ought to be able to pick up vanilla feats and "prestige" classes like Point Blank Shot, Weapon Focus, Eldritch Knight and Mystic Theurge without having to jump through hoops. Prestige classes that merely advance a character's existing abilities can be seen as a natural development given the character's knowledge and experiences.

4. Two-Handed Weapons
Again, restrict training. Maybe TWF is only taught in a cloistered martial school high in the mountains. Perhaps it used to be used by a demonic empire in the distant past, so all modern practitioners are hated and feared to the point where people clearly carrying two weapons can't even get a room for the night.

I agree that the Prerequisites are low as written. I've seen far too many TWF Sorcerers and Wizards to be plausible. We've House Ruled the prerequisites to "DEX 15, BAB +1" which stops most classes from taking it before 3rd level. That's an improvement.

I think the OP felt that two-handed weapons, and not two-weapon fighting, was the problem. Plus, the house rule means no TWF rogues at 1st level. I'm also surprised that sorcerers and wizards would want TWF. I personally would pick Point Blank Shot or some other feat that doesn't require me to get within melee reach to use.

5. Balancing Per Encounter Instead of Per Day
He're the thing. In role-playing, the world /does/ revolve around the player characters. It's their story, so they should be the centre of attention. That's not the problem, though.

The whole EL system is just plain daft. I'm sick to the teeth of the HD/CR/EL/LA/ECL thing; it's a badly put together kludge that should have been drowned at birth. I don't like that a "balanced encounter" means it takes 25% of resources. (I could get all political about US military perceptions influencing RPG design, but I won't). "Balanced" means there's a 50/50 chance of survival!!!! Yes, it's tough. That's what tactics and careful planning is for. A party of four 1-st level adventures clubbing a single Grimlock to death isn't heroic; it's cowardly slaughter, and has no place in my game.

Heroisim is those 4 1st-level adventurers taking on 8 grimlocks with a plan, and winning despite the odds.

Rant over. I feel better now.

I really don't understand the dislike for CR and EL. How does it negatively affect your game to know that a party of 4 appropriately-equipped PCs of level x should be able to defeat an opponent of CR x after expending 20% of their resources? It doesn't force you to challenge your players only with single creatures of CR equal to average party level in your games. If you want to have only a 50/50 chance of survival, go ahead - the CR/EL system tells you how many monsters of what CRs you should have.

In my usual games, the PCs hardly ever face single opponents of CR equal to average party level. It's usually equal numbers of APL-2 or APL-1, half party number of APL, or a single creature of APL+1 or APL+2, with optional supporting opponents. I can do this because my regular players are rather experienced and pretty good at tactics and supporting each other.

If I was running a game for a group of inexperienced players with 1st-level characters, however, I'd stick more closely to the EL1 standard, so as not to overwhelm them at the start. I can always start running tougher encounters after I get them hooked.

 

[delericho]

1. Multiclassing
Potential Solution: There needs to be a significant drawback to multiclassing while keeping it viable. Currently, the only drawback (XP penalty) is easily circumvented. Even when it isn't avoided, XP loss isn't fun.

Other than that PrCs with "+1 Caster Level" at every level are almost guaranteed to be overpowered, I don't see the problem here. Oh, and they need to look at a couple of the classes where making a dip of a level or two is a little too nice.

I think perhaps Prestige Classes should be renamed, though. Oh, and I hate with a passion the attitude (prevalent in my group, but perhaps not generally) that you _have_ to take a PrC to remain competitive.

2. Free Metamagic
Potential Solution: I think this aspect just needs to be removed from the game. Metamagic is fine. "Free" metamagic is not.

Other than that the "Sudden X" feats should probably require "X" as a pre-requisite, I don't see too much of a problem here. In each case, there is a cost for the supposedly "free" metamagic.

3. Synergy
Potential Solution: Allow each player access to one sourcebook ONLY outside of the three core rulebooks. This prevents most forms of synergy. Of course it reduces player options so it is not an ideal solution.

I agree this is a problem, but I'll submit that it is also inevitable. More books means more options, which means more chance of a 'killer combination' being found.

In my opinion, the only solution to this is for the DM and the players to use the rules responsibly. If a killer combo is found, they each need to agree to just not use it, for the good of the game. Any other solution either won't get to the root of the problem, or will be overly restrictive.

4. Two-Handed Weapons
Potential Solution: (and this is vague) The game needs to support multiple fighting styles by providing viable options for each that don't heavily overshadow the others. Player's Handbook 2 goes a long way towards rectifying this problem, but I don't know if it goes far enough.

It doesn't. Adding lots of feats to the game can't solve this problem, since it's an issue with one core weapon choice, one core low-level feat, and one core magic item. Individually, they're all fine, but put together...

The actual solution is to probably reduce the two-weapon fighting penalties, make the animated shield significantly more expensive (or just remove it), and make shields in general more beneficial.

5. Balancing Per Encounter Instead of Per Day

No, I lean the other way. Balancing per day leads to a buff-fight-rest paradigm where the spellcasters exhaust all their spells in the first encounter of the day, then insist the group rest while they recover. And there are only so many times the DM can have them be attacked while resting, assign a time limit, or impose the other dodges that are commonly used.

Given the choice, I'll take a game balanced per encounter over one balanced per day, thanks. (And publishing two versions is a non-starter; WotC would be mad to compete with themselves like that.)

6. Neverending Buffs
Potential Solution: Reduce durations of spells like this, or add costly material or XP costs to reduce their frequency of use.

In general, I agree with your assessment of the problem. However, reducing the duration to a number of rounds just reinforces the buff-fight-rest paradigm. And these spells are not so powerful relative to other spells of their level as to justify costly materials or XP components.

What's probably needed is to reduce the number of spell slots available to the Cleric (and similar classes), and increase the need for those situational spells in encounter design, so that a group who blow all their Clerical spell resources on buffs suddenly find all their enounters much harder due to the lack of healings, divinations, battlefield control, or whatever else the Cleric could bring to the table instead.

7. Combat Expertise and Power Attack
Potential Solution: Simplify these kinds of feats with a flat penalty and flat bonus. The decision for the player then becomes merely to use it or not.

If players are taking too long, it is incumbent on the DM to tell them to get a move on. The Fighter really should have a cheat-sheet showing all his options. Or, he should just use these feats in increments of 5, and stop insisting on recalcuating every round to sqeeze out every possible +1 modifier from the system.

In short: no thanks. I like having the options.

8. Point Buy
As if we needed more excuses for players to focus on character creation as opposed to actually playing the game. The world isn't that fair. I don't know why we would expect our characters to be "equal" either (as if that ideal were even possible). Besides, it ruins the excitement of rolling up a really nice set of scores.
Potential Solution: Roll ability scores.

D&D isn't real life, and where life doesn't have to be fair, a game should be.

In the last campaign I played featuring randomly rolled ability scores, one player rolled the equivalent of a 64-point buy, while another rolled a 20-point buy. Now, at high level, that disparity might not have been too bad, but starting at 1st level, this was the equivalent of three or so 'free' levels to the lucky player's character, and it meant that the unlucky player had no fun for the duration of that (mercifully short) campaign.

So, no, I'm of the opinion that dice rolls have no place in character creation and management. I'll have point-buy, fixed starting funds by class, and fixed hit points per level, thanks.

Fortunately, this is one area where the game really can cater to both sides.

9. Rerolls
Potential Solution: Don't allow rerolls to change the result of automatic successes or failures.

I don't see rerolls as a signficant problem, but whatever.

10. Magic Item Creation
It costs XP to make magic items. So my character unlearns things for succeeding at a task. How on earth does that make sense?

In exactly the same way that Sauron poured all his rage and malice into the forging of the One Ring.

Potential Solution: Just drop the XP cost for magic item creation. It already costs your character a feat. Or make the creation of magic items difficult by requiring rare components that must be quested for.

I really dislike the 'rare components' solution. It serves to make the crafting of items too rare, where this aspect of the game is something that 3e vastly improved IMO. If you must get rid of the XP cost, either reduce the price break on crafted items to no more than 10% (instead of the current 50%), or use the craft point rules (which I believe are in Unearthed Arcana, and the Artificer uses a similar system.)

 

[greywulf]

Seriously, not everything has to be a gaming opportunity. A character ought to be able to pick up vanilla feats and "prestige" classes like Point Blank Shot, Weapon Focus, Eldritch Knight and Mystic Theurge without having to jump through hoops. Prestige classes that merely advance a character's existing abilities can be seen as a natural development given the character's knowledge and experiences.

Not everything, no. Prestige classes and some of the feats however aren't "most things". If the character wants something out of the ordinary there has to be an in-game justification for it. Heck, if a Fighter suddenly wanted to take a level of Wizard, I'd play that out in-game too

I think the OP felt that two-handed weapons, and not two-weapon fighting, was the problem. Plus, the house rule means no TWF rogues at 1st level. I'm also surprised that sorcerers and wizards would want TWF. I personally would pick Point Blank Shot or some other feat that doesn't require me to get within melee reach to use.

You're right. I misreadificated. Scrub what I said

I really don't understand the dislike for CR and EL. How does it negatively affect your game to know that a party of 4 appropriately-equipped PCs of level x should be able to defeat an opponent of CR x after expending 20% of their resources? It doesn't force you to challenge your players only with single creatures of CR equal to average party level in your games. If you want to have only a 50/50 chance of survival, go ahead - the CR/EL system tells you how many monsters of what CRs you should have.

...snip good stuff....

I don't like all the CR stuff because we've got 5 stats where one will do. It overcomplicates the game where at the endof the day all we want to know is how many XP, and if it's playable as a PC race. I'm sure there are simpler, less convoluted systems out there than what we currently have.

That said, CR /is/ as good as measure as any when it comes to assessing the challenge. We usually game where the CRs are 3 or 4 higher than the APL and that works for us. If the CR=APL it's just not a challenge.

As you say, for new players, maybe, but not experienced gamers.

 

[an_idol_mind]

Pretty much everything you listed as a complaint can be easily solved by the DM just changing up his style a bit. How do I know? Because none of those problems exist in my campaign.

 

[The_Gneech]

First, I've only ever seen a floaty shield once in a game, when I (playing the wizard) cast the "free shield" spell on an NPC fighter so he could use a two-handed reach weapon when fighting giants. I don't see this as a big problem, myself.

Second, I totally disagree about multiclassing. It should be easy, free, and more or less the norm, in my opinion! That's one major thing about d20 Modern, Star Wars, et al., do right as far as I'm concerned. A warrior might be FTR 6 or FTR 2/BBN 2/RGR 2 or BBN 5/ROG 1 -- but he's still a warrior! "Class" is a metagame construct and has no value in and of itself.

-The Gneech

 

[tx7321]

3E is a great game for what it is. But its biggest problem, and the reason I won't play it any longer (and alot of others won't as well) is its requirement of stacking. The feats and Skill systems require too much record keeping for the typical player (esp. once you reach around 4th and up) ("whats my total to hit with this weapon, what about that one, whats bull rush again, what do I need to get it"?). Also characters start feeling like the sum total of their feats and skills...very similar to card games like magic (and many have stated 3E is Magic in FRPG form..and I think there is some truth to that). Every possible "move" has a corresponding "button" in a skill (or feat and skill). This button effect, I think, is another problem that can't be fixed (as its too built in). IN 1E feats and skills were built into the archetype, and were just generally assumed (the player asked to try and do stuff and the DM told them what to role based often on his logic. 3E has actions so defined, you can't make a move without checking a number on your PC page. Where's the fun in that! These judgement calls (in earlier D&D) were a big part of the fun for the DM who took ownership of the game in this way.

Now none of tihs is to say 3E is broken, it just doesn't work for me. I know alot of good guys that love 3E and I respect their opinion. So, please don't take this the wrong way. And I'm open to suggestions to fix those elements that really bug me on such a fundamental level