I like 3E, but I miss...

[Thanee]

Except for the original and inherent coolness of these days, I think I mainly miss decent multiclassed spellcasters as well.

Altho my all-time favorite magic-user/thief is still pretty well represented with the Arcane Trickster nowadays!

From the original D&D, besides that mysterious something it had about it, I really liked the mass combat rules (simple and still quite good (altho the +100 modifier for being completely unable to harm your opponent in any way was a bit hilarious )) and the super cool campaign Test of the Warlords. That one was great fun!

For those that miss the quick and simple original D&D rules, you might want to take a look into Talislanta. While it is completely different in style and quite exotic from a standard fantasy point of view, it's extremely simple and still very cool.

Bye
Thanee

 

[woodelf]

That was the revised box (where the rulebook was called "Age of Heroes"). The original box had paper maps

Thanks--i was starting to wonder if i'd lost my mind, 'cause i had most of the pre-revised Dark Sun stuff, and could've sworn i'd never seen a cloth map.

 

[jasamcarl]

Another vote here for level titles, neutral assassins, rangers with magic-user spells, effective multiclassing spellcasters, and a DMG that included a treasure trove of tables, miscellaneous info, and reading recommendations.

My biggest vote goes for the idea of balance, however. (/rant on) In 1e, Gary Gygax didn't believe in the idea of balance as we know it today. He said right in the PHB that the magic-user and the monk may be the most devastating classes at higher levels. I miss having unbalanced character classes. The weak-at-low-levels, strong-at-high-levels magic-user and the reverse-designed fighter made a lot of sense to me. I don't think it's possible to perfectly balance every character class at every level, and I think it's up to the campaign and the DM to make sure that the game is fun for everyone. If someone doesn't want to play a class because it's not 'powerful' enough, then the DM should adjust his campaign accordingly. It's all about the players. Having unbalanced classes gave them more options. They could choose, by their class, to play in a low-powered or high-powered campaign - as long ast he DM adequately adjust the campaign to keep the game fun for the players. Balance as we know it today is a misguided port to D&D from computer games. In computer games, the computer can't adjust the campaign world on-the-fly to the choices of the player, so in a computer game, the designers have to make sure that all the class choices are equally fun and balanced to play. But in a pen-and-paper world, the DM can adjust the game for each individual character, even in a group - and she should. Given that DM adjustment, the inclusion of unbalanced classes gives players more options. Namely, they can choose to play in a high-powered or low-powered game by their choices.(/rant off)

Still, there are many more things that I don't miss.

Uh, no thanks. I would rather the option of which class i take not be dictated by whether you are running a low or high-powered campaign. And as a DM I would rather base my encounter choices on solid assumptions of party capability per level, as oppossed to having to guestimate what they are capable of thanks to a few lazy, loose design descicions.

DM and Plurality of the Party: "Hey, let's fight demons at 3rd level!!!"

Lone Player: "But I wanted to play a fighter!"

Rest of the Group: "That's your the beauty of 1e/2e, you have the option to be weak and die over and over. The communist conspiracy, aka 3e, would have limited your option to do that by telling you that you are screwed or, even worse, seducing you with the option to play a compitent fighter, thereby forcing you to play at a lower level to be worthless!!!"

LP (pondering): "Ok, carry on then..."

In conclusion, if a dm wants options in designing a high-magic/low-magic game or tougher/easier challenges, intentionally misbalancing the classes is the worst way of doing this, because you trade off a great deal of ingame tactical options in the process. If you want to add/subtract effectivness from the players, making such a change class neutral is the way to go, by slicing off xp/gp awards or some other method. Atleast 3e gives you some definitive base from which you can develop such a change...

 

[Gothmog]

Things I miss:

Lower power level

One page, one moster- really, the info on culture, ecology, etc WAS more useful than a pile of stats.

GP value/level requirements- let the DM give whatever level of treasure he felt was appropriate. Now its so tied into the system, that giving differing amounts of treasure has effects across the board.

Decent, non-spikey dungeonpunk art- I want a pic to depict what something looks like- be representational of the creature, not a stylized drawing

Gotta agree with Teflon Billy- wandering prostitute table- as well as all the cool tables in the DMG

Non-generic clerics- the 2E sphere system was SO much better than domains

Weapon skills- all characters of the same class being able to use the same weapons is dumb


Things I DON'T miss

Super-elves

weird multiclassing rules- old multiclass characters were MUCH more powerful than regular characters

Non-weapon proficiencies

Old saving throws

 

[Ycore Rixle]

Uh, no thanks. I would rather the option of which class i take not be dictated by whether you are running a low or high-powered campaign.

I thought I said the reverse: that class choice could dictate the power level of the campaign. You are saying that the power level of the campaign dictates class choice. I think 1e allowed for the former possibility. 3e still allows for it, as well. My gripe is that too many people moan incessantly about precise 'balance.' I think that the idea of balance only comes from computer games that have to pre-balance their worlds for all character choices. With a GM who is able to adjust the campaign world on the fly for each individual character, there is no need to pre-balance the character class choices beyond a reasonable limit.

And as a DM I would rather base my encounter choices on solid assumptions of party capability per level, as oppossed to having to guestimate what they are capable of thanks to a few lazy, loose design descicions.

Well, I guess we just have a difference of opinion there. Your "loose" design decisions - presumably the decision to not exactly balance each character class - are perfect for me. I like the idea of a Guide and a Handbook, not a rule book.

In conclusion, if a dm wants options in designing a high-magic/low-magic game or tougher/easier challenges...

My point was that unbalancing the classes gave this option to the player, not the DM. A DM has all the options he'll ever need to design high-magic/low-magic etc. games, and they're all called Rule 0. Players, who are the focus of the game, need this option too.

...intentionally misbalancing the classes is the worst way of doing this, because you trade off a great deal of ingame tactical options in the process.

I'm sure I could think of some worse ways. Seriously, a lot of people seem stuck on the idea that all the classes in the game have to be, as close as possible, exactly the same in power and utility. Absolutely not. All of the players must be so balanced, but all of the classes do not. It is up to the DM to make sure that the players are all of having fun. Classes that aren't balanced makes an interesting world and gives meta-game power to the players.

About the situation where three players in a group choose relatively higher-powered classes and one player chooses a relatively lower-powered class, well, that scenario just screams with opportunity. From LOTR to One Tree Hill, literature is filled with underdogs.

If you want to add/subtract effectivness from the players, making such a change class neutral is the way to go, by slicing off xp/gp awards or some other method.

Again, it's not about what the DM wants. It's about what the players want. The player has the choice: does he choose a fighter or a magic-user? His choice forces the DM to change the world to make that player feel challenged and effective.

Finally, don't get me wrong. I love 3e. I even love 3.5e. I think the game is getting better all the time. I just think hyper-intensive 'balancing' of classes is burdening the game and taking away some of the sense of wonder.

 

[Wormwood]

I just think hyper-intensive 'balancing' of classes is burdening the game and taking away some of the sense of wonder.

While I agree in theory, my group played 1e/2e for so long that when the 'sense of wonder' eventually wore off, we were left with the unbalanced underpinnings of the system.

Bladesingers. Lots of Bladesingers.

*shudder*

 

[MrFilthyIke]

For those that miss the quick and simple original D&D rules, you might want to take a look into Talislanta. While it is completely different in style and quite exotic from a standard fantasy point of view, it's extremely simple and still very cool.

I adore Talislanta!

I even asked Monte at a seminar at GenCon if they had based 3.0 on
Talislanta (which WotC owned briefly). One of the best worlds, evar.

 

[woodelf]

I adore Talislanta!

I even asked Monte at a seminar at GenCon if they had based 3.0 on
Talislanta (which WotC owned briefly).

As opposed to Ars Magica, which WotC owned for about the same amount of time, which practially looks just like D&D3E under the hood, and which Jonathan Tweet was codesigner of? I keep hearing the Talislanta thing, but, beyond the general idea that i'm sure they borrowed ideas from lots of places, i think the fact that D&D3E looks exactly like a 50/50 cross of AD&D2 Players' Option and Ars Magica pretty much answers the question.

 

[jasamcarl]

I thought I said the reverse: that class choice could dictate the power level of the campaign. You are saying that the power level of the campaign dictates class choice. I think 1e allowed for the former possibility. 3e still allows for it, as well. My gripe is that too many people moan incessantly about precise 'balance.' I think that the idea of balance only comes from computer games that have to pre-balance their worlds for all character choices. With a GM who is able to adjust the campaign world on the fly for each individual character, there is no need to pre-balance the character class choices beyond a reasonable limit.




Well, I guess we just have a difference of opinion there. Your "loose" design decisions - presumably the decision to not exactly balance each character class - are perfect for me. I like the idea of a Guide and a Handbook, not a rule book.



My point was that unbalancing the classes gave this option to the player, not the DM. A DM has all the options he'll ever need to design high-magic/low-magic etc. games, and they're all called Rule 0. Players, who are the focus of the game, need this option too.




I'm sure I could think of some worse ways. Seriously, a lot of people seem stuck on the idea that all the classes in the game have to be, as close as possible, exactly the same in power and utility. Absolutely not. All of the players must be so balanced, but all of the classes do not. It is up to the DM to make sure that the players are all of having fun. Classes that aren't balanced makes an interesting world and gives meta-game power to the players.

About the situation where three players in a group choose relatively higher-powered classes and one player chooses a relatively lower-powered class, well, that scenario just screams with opportunity. From LOTR to One Tree Hill, literature is filled with underdogs.




Again, it's not about what the DM wants. It's about what the players want. The player has the choice: does he choose a fighter or a magic-user? His choice forces the DM to change the world to make that player feel challenged and effective.

Finally, don't get me wrong. I love 3e. I even love 3.5e. I think the game is getting better all the time. I just think hyper-intensive 'balancing' of classes is burdening the game and taking away some of the sense of wonder.

Ok, but I think in many ways that is even worse. So now if I wish to play a fighter I have to coordinate with the other players in order the excercise these options you claim many people like and I'm likely to be outshined or rendered worthless in atleast half the games.

Not to mention that you seem to be assuming a group where the players talk amongst themselves to see what type of game they want, but not with the dm. If everyone decided what type of game they wanted to play, then the dm could structure the game beforehand to deal with that while maintaining class balance in 3e, as oppossed to having to work with the selection of classes the party provides, which limits ingame (as oppossed to metagame options), which is what you are suggesting.

You know, 3e can do exactly what you seem to want. All the players have to do is ignore any level limit. Then you can have four 20th level character to present to your surprised dm and he can put himself into an Epic mindset. Or perhaps all 4th level fighters. You can even slow or stop xp handouts so the players can remain in this sweetspot and just shift their equipment around for customization. This would do everything you say earlier editions did, but also ensure that the integrity of the level system is still there...

 

[Teflon Billy]

...I keep hearing the Talislanta thing, but, beyond the general idea that i'm sure they borrowed ideas from lots of places, i think the fact that D&D3E looks exactly like a 50/50 cross of AD&D2 Players' Option and Ars Magica pretty much answers the question.

I thought the same thing. The D20 mechanic looks like the Ars Magica mechanic is you replace AM's D10 with, well, D20.