Was 3rd edition fundamentaly flawed?

[BryonD]

Bryon, I just noticed your sig has a startling lack of granularity.

Sometimes it just works out best that way.

 

[wingsandsword]

Well, I don't think is was fundamentally flawed, as I'd never say it was a flawed system.

What flaws it has were fundamental, rooted in core design assumptions.

One man's fundamental flaw is another man's ideal design.

There is enough difference in what gamers like that no one version of D&D is going to satisfy everybody. The core design assumptions that make an ideal D&D for one group, will seem fundamentally flawed to another. 4e is just being built on a different set than 3e, so it will likely appeal to a different set of D&D gamers as being a better system.

This time next year, when 4e is out, people will be talking about how it's the greatest RPG ever and it solves all the problems with D&D and they could never imagine playing anything else. . . and several years after that when 5e is announced people will be talking about how 4e was fundamentally flawed and 5e is going to be perfect and solve those design problems.

 

[Psion]

My experience of the sweet spot is levels 3–8, after that, casters get, well…you know.

My experience is it extend from about 2-20.

1st level's sort of rough.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

One man's fundamental flaw is another man's ideal design.

No. Some people can work fine with it or it never gets in their way of playing the game. But it's not their ideal design.

There is enough difference in what gamers like that no one version of D&D is going to satisfy everybody. The core design assumptions that make an ideal D&D for one group, will seem fundamentally flawed to another. 4e is just being built on a different set than 3e, so it will likely appeal to a different set of D&D gamers as being a better system.

This time next year, when 4e is out, people will be talking about how it's the greatest RPG ever and it solves all the problems with D&D and they could never imagine playing anything else. . . and several years after that when 5e is announced people will be talking about how 4e was fundamentally flawed and 5e is going to be perfect and solve those design problems.

I think a lot of people already explained that 4e will also have fundamental flaws. But it will still fix old ones, and these are the ones that hurt people now (if at all), and the new ones will be noticed later.

 

[Bacris]

My experience is it extend from about 2-20.

1st level's sort of rough.

Psion sounds like the kind of person I'd enjoy gaming with

And having played 3E for about 4 1/2 years now, and 3.5 for the majority of that, I don't think 3.X is fundamentally flawed. I think parts of it were flawed, but enough of it worked fine that it could be a great game with minimal fuss

 

[Anthtriel]

the notion that 1st level MUs go 'splat' real easy and there is a 10 pt difference in BAB at 20th level betwen a fighter and a not-a-fighter class, or saves vs some effects being really bad vs really good at really high levels equals fundementally flawed baffles me.

Some characters are good at some things, some charcetr are bad at some things no one is bad at everything or good at everything.

Too much divergence is bad. Monte Cook openly stated that he regretted having wizards and sorcerers at D4, because attacks tended to either kill the wizard in two hits, or be a mere scratch for the barbarian.
The Save problem was admitted in Saga design, when the different progressions were cut. Save or Die and Save or Screwed is (even more) problematic if one character makes the time almost always, and the other gets hit half the time.

It doesn't really work well in flavor either: Why can your Level 1 Wizard who spent his life studying scrolls, fight about as well as fighter at the beginning of their career, but not at all at the higher levels? You would imagine that the difference between them would stay pretty much the same.


If you really believe that is unproblematic, explain to me why exactly the middle levels (where the difference between saves and bab is right in the middle) plays so much better than the low or the top levels, and why designers state that the math works exactly at that point?

 

[Samnell]

A good 95% of what people criticize 3.5 for on these boards and elsewhere are problems I never see in my games, or see only in very small corner cases. This being the internet, they are of course blown way out of proportion. The main flaws I see aren't areas where a system is bad or wrong (like CR or EL) but where it could be more accurate than it is. These are fixer-ups, not fundamental issues. The only outstanding example I can think of is one that's almost never brought up here: the problem of increasing absolutes. It doesn't seem to come up much in the 4e marketing spiels either. SKR has an unfinished essay up on it.

Christmas tree PCs and the like are not rules flaws. They're just preferences for otherwise than the default rules assumptions. No rule set will ever please all consumers. It's a play style and philosophical difference, not an obvious case of the rules being objectively faulty.

 

[med stud]

Ha!

Are you saying they will not try to sell as many supplements* as they did in 3.5 edition?

(By supplements I mean Core Rules2 (2009), Core rules3 (2010), Core Rules4 (2011) etcetera.

I'm not TerraDave but my take on less book intensive is that you don't need to consult books as often and less book keeping intensive.

 

[pemerton]

The main flaws I see aren't areas where a system is bad or wrong (like CR or EL) but where it could be more accurate than it is. These are fixer-ups, not fundamental issues.

Are you a player or GM? The issues for GMs that arise due to using the same build rules for PCs and NPCs/monsters are fundamental to the game - but maybe you are a GM who doesn't find the complexity of the build rules an issue.

 

[Samnell]

Are you a player or GM?

GM almost exclusively.

The issues for GMs that arise due to using the same build rules for PCs and NPCs/monsters are fundamental to the game - but maybe you are a GM who doesn't find the complexity of the build rules an issue.

Not only not an issue, I find it a bonus. One of the top five best things about the system, in fact. It's a good in itself. 3e is not very complex at all to me, unless one goes far out of one's way to make it so. I've done that in the past, but it's a choice on my part to throw everything but the rules for the kitchen sink into an NPC. Nothing in the rules forced me to slap the saint template, a version of half-celestial, a prestige class from FR, feats from the Book of Nine Swords, and so forth on top of a dwarf cleric. But it all fits him, and he's one of the most important NPCs in the campaign, and the players are going to be going into battle with him, and the players adore the guy, so it was worth going the extra mile.

Non-PCs using the same rules as PCs is one of the killer applications of 3e and its absence in 4e alone virtually destroyed the product for me. I don't want a less robust, less consistent system. I want more of both. Ideally, lots more.