What is 3.0 & 3.5 missing that previous editions had?

[FireLance]

I haven't read all of these, so maybe someone has mentioned it already - Fighters with 18/xx strength clearly being the strongest in the party. That extra percentage only available to the fighter class set them apart. Now a first level wizard can be as strong as someone who has supposedly spent his early life training with weapons and wearing armor.

Actually, if I remember correctly, Fighters, Paladins and Rangers got to roll exceptional strength (18/xx) if they had a Strength of 18. This was only introduced in AD&D 1st and 2nd editions, by the way - in "basic" D&D, there was no extra advantage for a fighter (or dwarf) with 18 Strength.

As such, it was a bit of a jarring adjustment for me when I switched from basic D&D to Advanced. While I could rationalize it to myself that only fighter-types could devote themselves to improving their Strength to such an extent, there were a couple of things that bugged me:

1. All fighter-types with Strength 18 rolled for exceptional strength. As such, they went directly from Strength 17 to Strength 18/01-50, completely bypassing one Strength category. The bell curve of Strength for fighter-types suddenly looked a little wonky.

2. A non-fighter type who had 18 Strength and increased it by one point (rare, but possible) suddenly went to 19 Strength, completely bypassing five Strength categories. If the bell curve for fighter-types looked wonky, this was even worse.

3. Every fighter-type absolutely had to have exceptional Strength. Seriously, who would want to miss out on the chance for +3 to hit, +6 to damage for 18/00 Strength, compared to a "measly" +1/+1 for 17?

In retrospect, fighter-types and pure fighters in particular needed the power-up just to keep pace with the spellcasters. 3.Xe balanced the classes better, and that allowed us to get rid of exceptional strength.

The funny thing was, when 3e was first released, and I found out that exceptional strength was gone, I went into full "what were they thinking" mode - exactly same reaction that I had when it was first introduced.

Interesting, huh?

 

[MerricB]

Actually, if I remember correctly, Fighters, Paladins and Rangers got to roll exceptional strength (18/xx) if they had a Strength of 18. This was only introduced in AD&D 1st and 2nd editions, by the way - in "basic" D&D, there was no extra advantage for a fighter (or dwarf) with 18 Strength.

The original D&D (1974) had no bonuses for strength at all save a bonus to XP for fighters. With the addition of Supplement I (Greyhawk), the strength bonuses for melee were introduced, including exceptional strength for fighters. When Basic D&D came out (Holmes first, then Moldvay, then Mentzer), exceptional strength was dropped. Moldvay was the one who introduced the 13-15 +1; 16-17 +2 and 18 +3 bonuses that were such an attractive feature of Basic D&D.

I agree with your analysis of the flaws of exceptional strength: either you were a fighter with it, or you weren't and you were much, much, much weaker.

The balancing trouble with all of the bonuses for fighters in 1E was that they all kicked in from 1st level. So, the magic-user got even further behind at 1st level. If they came gradually into effect (such as we have in 3E), then the imbalance between classes at various levels would not have been so severe.

Cheers!

 

[kenjib]

Uh, that is the lamest cop out i've ever heard. By that logic, you wouldn't need any rules, because, you know, your discretion is better anyway. Unfortunatly, that's not the case, simply by virtue of the fact that a player couldn't predict an outcome, so constant dm improv almost always leads to a clean sweap, railroading, or arbitrary tpks. And, besides what another friendly poster has mentioned (2e's COMBAT rules were filled with many more holes and inconsistencies than 3e, and combat in general was less balanced), 3e's rules actually intereact and have been playtested with a certain balance point, one I'd hazard you'd be unable to replicate by constantly pulling something out of your ass (though sometimes that is unavoidable.)

That strikes me as a very D&D-centric viewpoint on RPGs. Some games don't care about balance at all. Other games work really well with lots of improv and the rules really fading into the background. It may not be what you like, but these things work well for many people.

 

[rounser]

3e's rules actually intereact and have been playtested with a certain balance point, one I'd hazard you'd be unable to replicate by constantly pulling something out of your ass (though sometimes that is unavoidable.)

And therein lies the clincher, I think. 1E, to draw an analogy between a body and a game system*, most people would happily ignore what could be considered fingers or toes of the rules system, such as the polearm modifiers versus armour types rules, and still pretend you had a semblance of balance. The things people might like to ignore to "speed up" or "simplify" the system come 3E, such as the feat or skill subsystems, are tightly integrated vital organs, and it's more difficult to pretend that you've still got an intact game once they've been extracted.

Now, jasamcarl, I've seen you argue before that this point is moot because 1E had no balance to speak of. The reality of it matters less than what people accept as balanced, and the bleeding wounds that the 3E system suffers from ripping out the feat or skill systems are in an entirely different league as the nips and tucks all DMs seemed to make in playing 1E, such that it's easier to accept a slightly meddled with 1E as intact than a largely modified 3E, with repercussions springing up everywhere from classes to spells to CR.

*: Yes, silly I know, but bear with me...

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Now, jasamcarl, I've seen you argue before that this point is moot because 1E had no balance to speak of. The reality of it matters less than what people accept as balanced, and the bleeding wounds that the 3E system suffers from ripping out the feat or skill systems are in an entirely different league as the nips and tucks all DMs seemed to make in playing 1E, such that it's easier to accept a slightly meddled with 1E as intact than a largely modified 3E, with repercussions springing up everywhere from classes to spells to CR.

Yes, if you set the bar low enough for the rotten apple and high enough for the fresh juicy orange, some people will be mystified about the "soul" that lacking from the orange.

 

[kenjib]

Yes, if you set the bar low enough for the rotten apple and high enough for the fresh juicy orange, some people will be mystified about the "soul" that lacking from the orange.

I assume that the rotten apple is 3e and the juicy orange is 1e? Or is it the other way around? Oh well...

 

[hrafnagud]

For what it's worth, I never meant to compare 1E and 3E for ease of calculating encounter difficulty. I merely wanted to point out that having a metric (CR) by which players can determine just how unfair I'm being draws overt attention to the idea of 'balance,' which is something I feel has become highly overrated in roleplaying generally, and D&D specifically.

 

[hrafnagud]

I think if one of the requirements to "communicate with the collective thought of your ancestors" is that no black people are allowed, then those are probably not the ancestors you should be communicating with.

I think you've taken this issue seriously out of context. I suppose Snorri Sturluson owes the world an apology for having no blacks in his Eddas? And that simple fact (for indeed, it's true) should somehow prevent me, as a moral person, from drawing inspiration out of Scandinavian mythology? Bollocks to that! Looks like a cheap shot to appear culturally sensative to me...

 

[Ogre Mage]

I think that 1st and 2nd edition generally had better quality modules. We've seen good third party modules in 3.x, but the quality of most of the WoTC modules has been mediocre. I also find a strong preference for the fluff material written in the earlier editions. The work just seemed more imaginative and flavorful.

Mechanically, however, 3.x blows away earlier editions. Much of the internal balance inconsistencies and unnecessary complexities have been streamlined and/or gotten rid of. I do not miss the headache of the old multiclassing system, the crazy power imbalances (if you think 3rd edition clerics are overpowered check out 2nd edition psionicists), THACO or trying to figure out what dice to roll for a monster that did 12-33 damage, wasting time rolling for initiative every round and calculating weapon speeds, spell speed and many many other things which would not make me want to go back to the old rules, no matter how much better the flavor and world-building was.

 

[hong]

I think you've taken this issue seriously out of context.

Your knee is jerking. Stop jerking.

I suppose Snorri Sturluson owes the world an apology for having no blacks in his Eddas?

Snorri Sturluson had rather limited opportunities to learn of the world outside northern Europe, thus explaining the nature of his work. You, on the other hand, have no such excuse. Do you?

And that simple fact (for indeed, it's true) should somehow prevent me, as a moral person, from drawing inspiration out of Scandinavian mythology?

Tell me again exactly where I said you were prevented from drawing inspiration from Scandinavian mythology.

More to the point, tell me exactly why D&D should be limited to one particular folkloric tradition.

Bollocks to that!

Indeed.

Looks like a cheap shot to appear culturally sensative to me...

This is because you took off your tinfoil hat. Put it back on.