The Little Raven
First Post
About as much as we need edition wars, "edition X is not D&D," and the "my game's penis is bigger than your game's penis" posts that permeate these forums.
Weakness by Edition
- Thread starter Oni
- Start date
About as much as we need edition wars, "edition X is not D&D," and the "my game's penis is bigger than your game's penis" posts that permeate these forums.
CruelSummerLord
First Post
Many of the issues I have with the systems have already been mentioned, but I'll throw in my two coppers worth:
-First Edition's problem was, again, that the characters were too similar. There's not much to distinguish Flint Fireforge from Caramon Majere, for example, besides their ability scores and weapon types. The level limits for demihumans were too arbitrary and low.
-Second Edition was neutered for Pat Pulling and the other mothers who couldn't be bothered to be responsible parents. No demons or devils, the bad guys always suffer humiliating defeats, etc. General institutional rot creeped in around this time too, with endless series of splatbooks strangling the market. Greyhawk was destroyed, violated by the Greyhawk Wars and From The Ashes.
-Third Edition, as frankthedm, hewligan, firesnakearies and others have pointed out, had it built into the rules that characters required a specific number and type of magical items to maintain play balance, something which blows chunks if you're one of those people who prefers a lower-magic game or story, like me.
I also think there was a larger failing in 3E than simply with designs. Some respondents here have criticized the anyone-can-do-anything design mentality of 3E, and the subsequent focus on combat and combat powers above all else, with players focusing on "building" the perfect killing machine through min-maxing. Admittedly, I'm not a gamer and so what I'm thinking might have no base, but perhaps less of an emphasis on combat alone (as the CR system was so integral to the working of the game as a whole) led many players simply to focus on doing as much damage possible in a round. If there had been more emphasis on building a specific type of character in mind, whether it be a bookish, pacifistic priest (like I once generated for an online game with the DM's help), or a rogue who specializes in scouting and guerilla warfare, and designing towards that, rather than simply creating characters that could mow down the most enemies in a round, maybe it would have helped. I don't know.
I haven't played Fourth Edition, so I won't otherwise criticize it save to say that in my view they commited a cardinal sin in dispensing with the Greyhawk/Forgotten Realms conventions, as pawsplay pointed out. Dragonborn, eladrin and tieflings have no place in conventional D&D. As optional or setting-specific races, sure, but if I were a DM I'd be more than a little upset at having to retcon my world to make room for these things, when gnomes and half-orcs are sitting on the sidelines.
To be blunt, it's just not D&D without gnomes and half-orcs. That's my view, of course, but it's one I stick to.
-First Edition's problem was, again, that the characters were too similar. There's not much to distinguish Flint Fireforge from Caramon Majere, for example, besides their ability scores and weapon types. The level limits for demihumans were too arbitrary and low.
-Second Edition was neutered for Pat Pulling and the other mothers who couldn't be bothered to be responsible parents. No demons or devils, the bad guys always suffer humiliating defeats, etc. General institutional rot creeped in around this time too, with endless series of splatbooks strangling the market. Greyhawk was destroyed, violated by the Greyhawk Wars and From The Ashes.
-Third Edition, as frankthedm, hewligan, firesnakearies and others have pointed out, had it built into the rules that characters required a specific number and type of magical items to maintain play balance, something which blows chunks if you're one of those people who prefers a lower-magic game or story, like me.
I also think there was a larger failing in 3E than simply with designs. Some respondents here have criticized the anyone-can-do-anything design mentality of 3E, and the subsequent focus on combat and combat powers above all else, with players focusing on "building" the perfect killing machine through min-maxing. Admittedly, I'm not a gamer and so what I'm thinking might have no base, but perhaps less of an emphasis on combat alone (as the CR system was so integral to the working of the game as a whole) led many players simply to focus on doing as much damage possible in a round. If there had been more emphasis on building a specific type of character in mind, whether it be a bookish, pacifistic priest (like I once generated for an online game with the DM's help), or a rogue who specializes in scouting and guerilla warfare, and designing towards that, rather than simply creating characters that could mow down the most enemies in a round, maybe it would have helped. I don't know.
I haven't played Fourth Edition, so I won't otherwise criticize it save to say that in my view they commited a cardinal sin in dispensing with the Greyhawk/Forgotten Realms conventions, as pawsplay pointed out. Dragonborn, eladrin and tieflings have no place in conventional D&D. As optional or setting-specific races, sure, but if I were a DM I'd be more than a little upset at having to retcon my world to make room for these things, when gnomes and half-orcs are sitting on the sidelines.
To be blunt, it's just not D&D without gnomes and half-orcs. That's my view, of course, but it's one I stick to.
JDJblatherings
First Post
A fighter specializing in longbow was very different from one that specialized in the two handed sword (even when not using the UA rules). MU's don't all have the same set of spells, one might never be able to learn some spells. Clerics have fewer healing spells available in 1st edition compared to future editions.
TerraDave
5ever, or until 2024
I have never used those words here. And don't plan to. Keep your words to yourself.
To be fair, on a thread in which you're supposed to find flaws with every edition, it's a bit upsetting and rude to declare "BUT THIS EDITION HAS NO FLAWS, NYEAH NYEAH NYEAH."
1e: First and somewhat disorganized. It took FOREVER to play a bard.
2e: Sacrificed some organization clean-up in the name of setting enhancement. Could play a bard immediately, but why? Introduced what would become splatbooks in 3e. Was easy to "house rule", but maybe that's because some were needed.
3e: Neutered the DM with rules for EVERYTHING while pandering to Munchkins. Splat book mania abounded. Basically nullified playing humans with "be whatever you want" and bigger stat boosts. Said "Balance? Who needs it? I have an astronomical AC and attack bonus and need a Gibson to calculate damage!" ****Did away with THAC0, probably the coolest term in gaming history.**** Arms race vs. role playing.
4e: Gave DM power back, but rigidly structured still and not very organic. Healing mechanic is just stupid and encounters can have a very "video game" feel. Took a lot of flavor away from spells with attack rolls. At ground zero of a fireball, you take damage if not immune to fire. Period. Duck & cover for half if you save. These are AREA effects and you're standing in the middle of said area. Characters far more generic statistically in most methods, relying on chosen powers for differentiation.
2e: Sacrificed some organization clean-up in the name of setting enhancement. Could play a bard immediately, but why? Introduced what would become splatbooks in 3e. Was easy to "house rule", but maybe that's because some were needed.
3e: Neutered the DM with rules for EVERYTHING while pandering to Munchkins. Splat book mania abounded. Basically nullified playing humans with "be whatever you want" and bigger stat boosts. Said "Balance? Who needs it? I have an astronomical AC and attack bonus and need a Gibson to calculate damage!" ****Did away with THAC0, probably the coolest term in gaming history.**** Arms race vs. role playing.
4e: Gave DM power back, but rigidly structured still and not very organic. Healing mechanic is just stupid and encounters can have a very "video game" feel. Took a lot of flavor away from spells with attack rolls. At ground zero of a fireball, you take damage if not immune to fire. Period. Duck & cover for half if you save. These are AREA effects and you're standing in the middle of said area. Characters far more generic statistically in most methods, relying on chosen powers for differentiation.
Last edited:
Storm Raven
First Post
Some of your criticisms make sense to me, even if I don't agree with them, but a couple just made me go "huh?", how did he get to THAT idea?
This. I've seen more humans played under the 3/3.5 rule set than all the other editions combined. Humans were made more attractive than any other race, at least in my experience. I wonder why you think there is no 'want or need" to play them under the 3e rules.
Once again, huh? How do you get this result from the rules for the Sense Motive skill? The text of Sense Motive says:
Where do you get from this the idea that Sense Motive allows you to glean a pile of information not contained in a statement. Under the rules, as written, your player would get the impression that the king was concealing information, and was probably untrustworthy, but not the exact nature of what was being concealed, or anything approaching the detail you claim he would be entitled to. So, my question on this issue is the same: upon what do you base this idea about how the 3e rule set work?
Storm Raven
First Post
The problem is that every edition (except possibly 4e) was written with a "correct" amount of magic in mind. It is just that until 3e, they didn't bother to tell you what that amount was in anything but the vaguest of terms. In the 1e era, large amounts of the letters column and forum in Dragon was taken up by people trying to parse out what the "correct" amount of magic for characters to have actually was - and it turns out from examining the modules published at the time, that the "correct" amount for 1e was roughly what the 3e designers explicitly said it was for 3e.
I'd argue that this was the flaw in 1e and 2e - a lack of transparency. And that, if there is a criticism about requiring a certain level of magic items for the game to work well, that it is applicable to all of the editions.
(I'd argue that it is applicable to 4e was well, it is just that the "magic items" are hard-coded into the character class abilities, exacerbating the problem of trying to use the system to play a low-magic game).
The issue here isn't so much with the CR system, but with how people used it. Combat encpounters are easy to think up, so lots of people did, but the CR system is about overcoming challenges - if the DM wanted to make the challenges ones that can be overcome with stealth, or diplomacy, or study and so on, he could, and the system would reward the characters as a result. The problem, in my experience, is DMs who wouldn't give experience for bypassing an enemy with stealth, or unraveling a mystery through research, and so on. The system probably should have been better written to emphasize this as a viable means of play, but the system does support it.
To be fair, I think the larger point about dice-rolling being a get-out-of-thinking free card stands, more or less*, though I don't run Sense Motive like that either. (Actually, how common are Sense Motive ranks among PCs anyway? IME it tends to get neglected somehow. Maybe because it's based on Wis and most "face" types dump that stat; also maybe because you can't necessarily Bluff the players.)
I did also have the experience of humans being much more popular in 3e than in previous editions where it was elves elves elves.
Also I never parsed correct treasure amounts from modules in the 1e days, because I didn't buy a ton of the things. Nope, Treasure Type C is the kind of thing I went by. People who subscribed to Dragon were probably a self-selecting sample here.
*The DM-power-loss-issue in 3e can be countered by willpower, which is why I didn't rank it as the biggest problem.
I did also have the experience of humans being much more popular in 3e than in previous editions where it was elves elves elves.
Also I never parsed correct treasure amounts from modules in the 1e days, because I didn't buy a ton of the things. Nope, Treasure Type C is the kind of thing I went by. People who subscribed to Dragon were probably a self-selecting sample here.
*The DM-power-loss-issue in 3e can be countered by willpower, which is why I didn't rank it as the biggest problem.
Similar Threads
