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?
Major Problems For 3rd Edition
- Thread starter EverDarkness
- Start date
FreeTheSlaves
Adventurer
Hmmm, well it has bothered me a lot that clerics only get 2 domains when they really need another.
Longswords really should be doing d12 damage, 20 threat.
Longswords really should be doing d12 damage, 20 threat.
Green Knight
First Post
d12 damage? Isn't that a bit extreme? 
And if it did, what amount of damage would the bastard sword and greatsword do?
Anyway, first off, I think Half-Orcs need a bit more "oomph". Not sure about half-elves, but I don't even like the race, so what the hell do I care? (Elf hater extraordinaire, here! All elves must DIE!!!)
Need I state the obvious about the Ranger?
I'd go into further detail, but most of the problems I've seen it appears that they're addressing, I.E. the Ranger.
Personally I'd also like for humans to get a little bit more, too. Maybe be able to take a skill as a class skill or something like that. Something to make them even more flexible. Just a thought.
And if it did, what amount of damage would the bastard sword and greatsword do? Anyway, first off, I think Half-Orcs need a bit more "oomph". Not sure about half-elves, but I don't even like the race, so what the hell do I care? (Elf hater extraordinaire, here! All elves must DIE!!!)
Need I state the obvious about the Ranger?
I'd go into further detail, but most of the problems I've seen it appears that they're addressing, I.E. the Ranger.
Personally I'd also like for humans to get a little bit more, too. Maybe be able to take a skill as a class skill or something like that. Something to make them even more flexible. Just a thought.
Wormwood
Adventurer
1. Not enough people play 3e.
2. Most who play don't play the way I like.
In all seriousness: The only real problem I have with 3e is that they didn't change enough. I feel the designers blew an opportunity to remove some useless 1e/2e conventions, but for some reason they didn't. Timidity? Backward compatibility?
For me, 3e feels like Windows 95---in immense improvement over previous editions, but we're still stuck with an outdated kernel. I would have preferred D&D-NT (or D&Dux!).
2. Most who play don't play the way I like.
In all seriousness: The only real problem I have with 3e is that they didn't change enough. I feel the designers blew an opportunity to remove some useless 1e/2e conventions, but for some reason they didn't. Timidity? Backward compatibility?
For me, 3e feels like Windows 95---in immense improvement over previous editions, but we're still stuck with an outdated kernel. I would have preferred D&D-NT (or D&Dux!).
Last edited:
PaulGreystoke
First Post
Wormwood said:
But 3e really did break new ground compared with the earlier editions of the game with its integrated skills system & the addition of feats. There is now actually a system to the madness. That some tired conventions were missed when the new broom was sweeping clean is unfortunate, but inevitable.
But obviously some things need to be rethought now that the new paradigm has been established & we have some experience in the new system. We can see the imbalances in certain spells (Heal/Harm/Haste) & in certain classes (Ranger/Monk/Bard). It looks like 3.5 will be addressing most of these. And then I hope we will see the game move more to options & away from restrictions.
That was my feeling about 2e once the new car smell faded.
But 3e really did break new ground compared with the earlier editions of the game with its integrated skills system & the addition of feats. There is now actually a system to the madness. That some tired conventions were missed when the new broom was sweeping clean is unfortunate, but inevitable.But obviously some things need to be rethought now that the new paradigm has been established & we have some experience in the new system. We can see the imbalances in certain spells (Heal/Harm/Haste) & in certain classes (Ranger/Monk/Bard). It looks like 3.5 will be addressing most of these. And then I hope we will see the game move more to options & away from restrictions.
FreeTheSlaves
Adventurer
RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHH
Me big troll ignore puny arrow and dart!
Me big troll ignore puny arrow and dart!
I'm A Banana
Potassium-Rich
I'm of the opinion that they didn't push it far enough.
No spell type is as wonky and unwieldy and filled with '2e-isms' as the Polymorph spells, for instance. I've removed the spell, and replaced it with a few spells spanning the levels that change the victims into various things (from turning things into, say, halflings at early levels, to goblins or pigs or toads or pumpkins at higher levels).
Also wonky spell-wise is the whole "(Blank) Person" tradition, which is a hold over from earlier additions. Right now, playing something non-humanoid of not small or medium size is remarkably unbalancing because it gives you effective immunity to a host of spells...it shouldn't be this way, IMHO.
I don't see many *mechanical* problems, though. The Ranger is front-loaded (but balanced). The Bard is kinda limp-wristed (but still balanced). The Monk isn't the combat machine people want it to be (but is still balanced). Harm is inordinately powerful (but balanced). Haste....well, I'm of the opinion that the problem isn't in the spell, but in the implementation (which, again, carries baggage from earlier editions). Heck, even the Ranger is a hold-over from 2e.
So, in other words, they didn't go far enough. Much of the problems I see are hold-overs and traditions. Which had it's advantages at first, but really starts to grow stale with age.
No spell type is as wonky and unwieldy and filled with '2e-isms' as the Polymorph spells, for instance. I've removed the spell, and replaced it with a few spells spanning the levels that change the victims into various things (from turning things into, say, halflings at early levels, to goblins or pigs or toads or pumpkins at higher levels).
Also wonky spell-wise is the whole "(Blank) Person" tradition, which is a hold over from earlier additions. Right now, playing something non-humanoid of not small or medium size is remarkably unbalancing because it gives you effective immunity to a host of spells...it shouldn't be this way, IMHO.
I don't see many *mechanical* problems, though. The Ranger is front-loaded (but balanced). The Bard is kinda limp-wristed (but still balanced). The Monk isn't the combat machine people want it to be (but is still balanced). Harm is inordinately powerful (but balanced). Haste....well, I'm of the opinion that the problem isn't in the spell, but in the implementation (which, again, carries baggage from earlier editions). Heck, even the Ranger is a hold-over from 2e.
So, in other words, they didn't go far enough. Much of the problems I see are hold-overs and traditions. Which had it's advantages at first, but really starts to grow stale with age.
Alzrius
The EN World kitten
My only problem with 3E is the setting itself. While I believe that "options, not restrictions" is a good thing, in their zeal to make this a truism, they knocked down some pillars that should have been left up.
My biggest regret is the loss of the holistic multiverse. It used to be that everything was connected to everything else via Spelljammer and Planescape. Ultimately, everything was connected, and what happened in one campaign could have repercussions elsewhere. That's gone now...the last echo of it being that there is an in-game reason for that (curse you Vecna!).
My biggest regret is the loss of the holistic multiverse. It used to be that everything was connected to everything else via Spelljammer and Planescape. Ultimately, everything was connected, and what happened in one campaign could have repercussions elsewhere. That's gone now...the last echo of it being that there is an in-game reason for that (curse you Vecna!).
jgbrowning
Hero
skills
my biggest complaint with 3e is the skills. (and he's not being a troll guys, i know him....)
I think they should have broke them down into three classes
physical/knowledge/social
each character would gain skill points for the three various realms depending upon class. Every character would have ranks in various knowledges and social skills (bluff, sense motive) that any experienced person should have. These types of skills would increase the role-playing possibilities because they would provide a more structured framework for non-combat conflict resolution.
joe b.
my biggest complaint with 3e is the skills. (and he's not being a troll guys, i know him....
)I think they should have broke them down into three classes
physical/knowledge/social
each character would gain skill points for the three various realms depending upon class. Every character would have ranks in various knowledges and social skills (bluff, sense motive) that any experienced person should have. These types of skills would increase the role-playing possibilities because they would provide a more structured framework for non-combat conflict resolution.
joe b.
