I like 3E, but I miss...

[Li Shenron]

I have to say that I played previous editions very little compared to 3ed, but still I toyed around with borrowed D&D and AD&D books from those editions for quite some time even if we played very little. I also have to say that I consider 3ed immensely superior from the point of view of mechanics. Anyway, there are things I miss from those imperfect old rules...

- I miss when being 5th level gave you the feeling of being one of the most powerful individual around for hundreds of miles, while nowadays there are campaigns starting at epic level already and when people discuss about interesting character combinations, they very rarely start with something below level 15th

- I miss when some rules were so unreasonable that they actually gave you the feeling of being playing something too magical to understand why it was written that way

- I miss when nobody cared about balance

- I miss when there was nothing to miss from previous editions

 

[Henry]

What I miss:

• 1st edition Druids. Those wacked out nature priests that could cast 3rd level spells -- at THIRD LEVEL.
• Lightning-fast character creation from Basic D&D.
• 1st edition Ranger's "Giant class" damage bonus - horribly broken, and still awe-inspiring. The 3.5e version begins to make up for it, though.
• Being 18 again, and the most important thing being what dungeon I was going to be running the guys through.

 

[Storm Raven]

FIRST edition was abusable? They haven't seen a tiefling monk/wizard/incantatrix/archmage yet. Of all editions 3e is by far the most abusable. It's simply a by-product of all the supplements.

Umm, right. Because a 1st Edition Grey Elven Fighter/Magic-User (who, at 9th/10th level had the same experience point total as a 10th level single classed fighter) or Drow Elven Ranger/Druid (who, at 8th/12th level had the same experience point total as a single classed 9th level Ranger) wasn't an overpowered monstrosity beyond the power of any possible 3rd Edition character.

In 1st or 2nd edition, was there ever a reason to play a single classed character?

 

[Junkheap]

Yea, now that i think aout it, the non balanced classes are the thing i miss the most. Every body understood and had no problems with it. We put away with level restrictions anyway. But mages were uber weak in the beginning and uber powerfull in the end. AFAIK most stories about mages, they ended up being more powerfull later on in life.

I miss it when the DM says something, NO ONE argied or had to look to the rules to see if it was legit. Players like myself loved the sense of wonder and really didn't care if it made sense or not. Everyone just went with the flow. We had more roleplaying, more rhythm when playing, instead of the jerkiness we have now due to the ruleset.

I love the 3e ruleset tho, only that it doesn't give me the sense of wonder that the older editions did.

 

[Henry]

Umm, right. Because a 1st Edition Grey Elven Fighter/Magic-User (who, at 9th/10th level had the same experience point total as a 10th level single classed fighter) or Drow Elven Ranger/Druid (who, at 8th/12th level had the same experience point total as a single classed 9th level Ranger) wasn't an overpowered monstrosity beyond the power of any possible 3rd Edition character.

Now, the interesting thing here is that, by the rules, as I was given to understand it, such a thing as a drow ranger/druid could not exist, and not at 8th/12th, anyway. Also, a Druid over 11th level had to fight for his position on a rgeulr basis, making it internally a harder thing to maintain.

The multiclassed concept was definitely flawed at lower levels, no doubt in my mind, even considering training times.

In 1st or 2nd edition, was there ever a reason to play a single classed character?

There was if you planned for your game to go past 7th level or so. In 2nd edition the level limits were as high as 12th to 15th, so there was less need.

In 1st edition, there was also a rule that demihuman characters who were single classed only got to advance up to two levels higher than the level limit listed; therefore, it did have some advantage.

 

[Voadam]

Not sure why I'm on the "old edition" kick today, but here we go.

This is the thread for you to reveal your deep, dark secrets. I think most of us enjoy playing 3.x, but come on. We've all got the skeletons in the closet (until we can find a cleric to turn them).

So come on, I dare you. Finish this sentence:

"As much as I like 3E, when thinking back to 1st or 2nd edition AD&D, I have to admit that I miss _____________."

Quick character generation.

1st level, nonmagical, core class assassins (1e)

in depth monster descriptions (2e)

Specialty priests (2e)

 

[diaglo]

In 1st or 2nd edition, was there ever a reason to play a single classed character?

yes. the answer was:

because you wanted to.

and b/c players back then (at least the ones i knew) weren't looking for the "Power Ups" of today.

but you knew i'd say that. just like i have for the last 2 and half years having this same discussion with you.

 

[Storm Raven]

Now, the interesting thing here is that, by the rules, as I was given to understand it, such a thing as a drow ranger/druid could not exist, and not at 8th/12th, anyway. Also, a Druid over 11th level had to fight for his position on a rgeulr basis, making it internally a harder thing to maintain.

You obviously never used the 1st Edition Unearthed Arcana rules. Since the suggested overpowering of 3rd Edition includes its supplements it is only fair to include the supplements for 1st Edition, and they did support that character.

There was if you planned for your game to go past 7th level or so. In 2nd edition the level limits were as high as 12th to 15th, so there was less need.

And using Unearthed Arcana also pushed the level limits up to the teens for most multiclassed characters. Once again, if you include the 3rd Edition supplements (and you are if you are talking about a tiefling monk.wizard/incantantrix/archmage), then you have to include the 1st Edition supplements, including Unearthed Arcana, Oriental Adventures, the Wilderness Survival Guide and the Dungeoneer's Survival Guide.

 

[Storm Raven]

yes. the answer was:

because you wanted to.

That's not an in game reason though, so it has little to do with a rules discussion.

and b/c players back then (at least the ones i knew) weren't looking for the "Power Ups" of today.

Then you played with an atypical group of players, unseen by most other gamers in the 1970s and 1980s.

 

[Korgan26]

I miss Inititive every round... if you went first you lived if not, well you got good at making characters.
Weapons speed. I mean really a human with a great sword is the same speed as an equal human with a short sword.

ah the good old days