sfgiants said:
...My main issues are the focus of the game. Balance becomes so pervasive that we constantly hear how a spell is "broken" or "unbalanced." Prior to 3e I never knew that the word "broken" can be applied to a game. In the last two years I have heard more about how "broken" the ranger is, and why anyone would play a bard...
Actually, they were around just as much as now - ever look at the rec.game.frp.dnd newsgroups from 1996 to 1999? Thieves were broken and useless because of mages, harm was spoken as being broken even back them by some, Psionics were busted, and few DMs allowed it in their campaigns, and the Skills and powers supplement was regarded by many as a "munchkin's Paradise." The basic rules were somewhat balanced, but quite boring. Balance was preserved to the point of strangulation of new ideas. However, under 2E, we STILL had talk on r.g.f.d. about how dominant Mages and specialist wizards were above 10th level - it was MORE so then than now.
...for the most part players of 3e...want all the classes to be balanced solely by combat/abilities (and if you look at the classes abilities 95% of them have combat applications...). If not, they aren't worth playing...
Now, many detractors have a serious problem - they do not weigh the skill system as being worth anything to a character. Many people who underestimate the existing ranger discount its skill bonuses, they discount the skill bonuses of druids, barbarians, and others for whom skills are meant to be a worthwhile addition. Noncombat is as important as combat, but now that there are solid rules for noncombat interactions, the big hue and cry is that "roleplaying is dead." Quite the contrary, roleplaying is
enforced now. No CHA 8, Diplomacy -1 fighter is going to spur an army through a rousing speech, or is going to get a discounted purchase. Before, There was no harm in social interactions for playing such. Now, it's a DM's pride and joy to watch a verbally savvy player (who dumped all social interactions to make a combat monster) try to speak to the local stable boy to find out where the best place is to buy a good sword.
Finally I have definately noticed that aspects of classes are even more entrenched now than they were before. Sure there are lots of options, but many of them aren't reall options at all. I point to such situations as the FRCS Spellcasting Prodigy feat. No spell caster ever goes with it anymore. How silly is that?
Quite silly, for your players. They honestly don't know which way the wind is blowing on that point, do they? What good is that extra +1 to DC and extra 1st level spell going to do them if they go last in a combat? How is it going to help them when they miss attacking with that ray spell by 1 point? How good will it do when they get knocked to -2 hit points? I'm not saying S.C.P. is a great feat, but its merits and drawbacks have been debated MANY times on our D&D Rules Forums, and its value does not outshine all other feats at 1st level. Its value is staggered over several levels, and this while making it worthwhile, does not make it the end-all and be-all of feats.
I guess my main gripe is that when sitting down to a game and choosing a character, I bring up bard and get "why would anyone play that?" Maybe I just miss games where playing a bard wasn't a debate as to whether it is broken or two weak. But, I still love 3e, as a player. I don't have to settle silly disputes, I can start 'em. 
Rules disputes are fun - and thanks to the virtue of the internet, we gamers have more of them now than we ever did. But as for the "why would anyone play a bard or ranger" disputes, you have to concede that these people who argue such are likely the ones who only see worth in combat solutions. The fact that a Bard can know every language known, or that the ranger can be the best equipped for survival on a frozen plain, or that a prepared druid can decimate a non-magical combatant, eludes them, as there is no worth in it if it doesn't stack with magical armor and weapons.
I am sorry if the game has been killed by bad experiences for you, but our group has had no problem adapting to and enjoying 3E, and we enjoy it with the same zeal as we enjoyed 1E and 2E. Now, none of us can contemplate going back, because of 20/20 hindsight over a set of very confusing and restrictive set of rules.
