What is 3.0 & 3.5 missing that previous editions had?

[Henry]

3E is missing one very important thing: Me being 18 and having nothing to do all day but design dungeons and my campaign world.

Some other things that to me give D&D a different feel:

The ability to communicate in a live and timely fashion with its designers, and get the whys and wherefores of the game, as opposed to not communicating and taking what came down from the mountain at face value.

The central emphasis on combat and what goes on while adventuring, with less thought being detailed for how a character determines what goes on outside of it. Thieves, for instance, were defined by backstabbing and thievery; now rogues are defined by dirty tricks and skill in whatever avenue they desire.

One thing I miss the most is perhaps the flaws themselves, the inconsistent rules, the quirks that make multiclassed characters more powerful than others, the rules that give dart-throwers with high strength unbelieveable damage in combat at low levels, the unbelievably long combat rounds, and all the other disjointed issues that gave it its charm. In short, the AD&D ruleset was a flagstone floor in a medieval mausoleum; the 3E ruleset is a tile floor in a modern home.

It's not just that the art has changed to a more cartoonish style. It's that WotC didn't try and make D&D into a serious RPG. They've thrown in that towel, and D&D is very much a campy, shallow, dungeon-crawl game.

I actually see the exact reverse. The 1st edition AD&D artwork was anything but deadly serious: It had cartoons, its serious drawings were in a cartoonish style (someone please tell me that Erol Otus was less cartoonish than Todd Lockwood - I don't see it!) and the very covers screamed 1930's Conan pulp fiction artwork. Artists like Arne Swekel, Todd Lockwood, Sam Wood, et. al actually turn the artwork into more serious subject matter to me (for instance, the pictures of Kerwyn the Rogue, Alhandra the paladin, and Arne's opening chapter illustrations.) There are more fun moments in there, too (Lidda's "bong" picture, Mialee's "Ugh, a spider" picture, etc.) but as a whole, they wanted a tone that took the game material itself less seriously than the older editions, and they succeeded, IMO.

 

[Aaron L]

It lacks a certain archaic feel compared to 1E, that woodcut look of the illustrations and the arbitrary random tables for every different activity. In some ways it feels less complete, as in all actions haven't been considered, because everything uses the same mechanic, but that is a good thing IMO.

What I think people feel as the "lack" in 3E is the standardization, as in every class doesn't have its own XP table, there aren't different save bonuses for every class, no quirky little thngs in different classes. This "soul" that is lacking in 3E is a combination of nostalgia, and the inclusion of a streamlined core mechanic and standardized accounting of class abilities.

The speed of leveling is a difference. In 3E there is a smooth progression from low level to high level in 3E, whearas in 1E and 2E I think you spent a much longer time in the mid levels before reaching full power at high levels. (In my games starting at about 6th level I start giving 3/4 XP, and then 1/2 XP at higher levels.)

The CR system built around the assumed value of equipment by level is a BIG difference.
(I think it's just way too metagamey to assume that all characters of a given level have the same value of equipment, and the core system being built around this assumption is a fault. I would much prefer a "looser" CR system where the CR assumes a range of difficulty.)

 

[Liolel]

What is 3.X missing. Two things: Planescape (which is the best published campaign setting ever) and detailed monster descriptions (by this I mean the parts that are not the statistics.)

 

[Remathilis]

What 3.x is missing:

* Distinct, narrow roles for PCs to fall into. Fighters Fight, Thieves Steal, Wizards blow things up, and Clerics Heal. Thats all.
* Arbitrary restrictions with "flavor text" to explain them (Halflings don't trust magic...)
* 10 systems to do the same thing (unarmed combat?)
* A variety of dice mechanic (1d20, 1d100)
* A higher dependancy on high ability scores.
* A higher dependancy on Luck/good die rolls.
* The concept of the Ominverse, with Greyhawk, Realms, and all other settings sharing the same cosmology.
* Magical Items, Weapons, and Spells that were CLEARLY superior to others.
* Classes and races that were CLEARLY superior to others.
* Classic Modules
* Too many choices (Players Options)
* Too many restrictions (d20 publishers?)
* Clear Inbalance in favor of the DM
* Rule Loopholes

Thats what I can think of. Whether these are good or bad are up to you.

 

[Calico_Jack73]

* Clear Inbalance in favor of the DM

Sorry, I gotta rant a bit about this.

Imbalance? The DM runs the game! I don't need rule imbalance to kill of the party if I so choose. Nowhere does it say in any of the books that I MUST use CRs to determine what monsters to throw at the party so if I throw a Great Wyrm Red Dragon at the party then that act is totally supported by the rules and I didn't use any "imbalance" kill them off. I'm so fed up with this "Players vs. DM" mentality. I get tired of players who shoot holes in a DM's plot because it doesn't abide by "THE RULES" and then complain about the mediocre story. You all know the type and they typically metagame. They'll analyze what level spellcasters are by the number of dice you roll for a Magic Missile attack or Fireball and then keep track of how much damage said caster has taken. The instant the caster has taken more hit point damage than their "calculation" has allowed for then they'll "helpfully" point it out to the DM and the rest of the players. If the DM doesn't take care of it to their advantage or at least spit out a reason for it then they'll get ticked off and sulk for the rest of the game. I view the game as a communal storytelling session. The players and the DM all play to tell a story. If the DM takes advantage of a rule to make the story interesting then so be it. I'd certainly hope that everyone's DM doesn't actively try to play against the Players.

Sorry for the rant. I'm just sick and tired of that mentality.

 

[Desdichado]

Sorry, I gotta rant a bit about this.

Imbalance? The DM runs the game! I don't need rule imbalance to kill of the party if I so choose. Nowhere does it say in any of the books that I MUST use CRs to determine what monsters to throw at the party so if I throw a Great Wyrm Red Dragon at the party then that act is totally supported by the rules and I didn't use any "imbalance" kill them off. I'm so fed up with this "Players vs. DM" mentality. I get tired of players who shoot holes in a DM's plot because it doesn't abide by "THE RULES" and then complain about the mediocre story. You all know the type and they typically metagame. They'll analyze what level spellcasters are by the number of dice you roll for a Magic Missile attack or Fireball and then keep track of how much damage said caster has taken. The instant the caster has taken more hit point damage than their "calculation" has allowed for then they'll "helpfully" point it out to the DM and the rest of the players. If the DM doesn't take care of it to their advantage or at least spit out a reason for it then they'll get ticked off and sulk for the rest of the game. I view the game as a communal storytelling session. The players and the DM all play to tell a story. If the DM takes advantage of a rule to make the story interesting then so be it. I'd certainly hope that everyone's DM doesn't actively try to play against the Players.

Sorry for the rant. I'm just sick and tired of that mentality.

I can imagine. Y'know, I hear stories like this from time to time, but I've never met a player like this. A lot of these player problems that people misidentify as rules or system problems really baffle me; I think 3e is the best thing to happen to D&D. And players like that are bad under any system.

 

[Henry]

I get tired of players who shoot holes in a DM's plot because it doesn't abide by "THE RULES" and then complain about the mediocre story....The instant the caster has taken more hit point damage than their "calculation" has allowed for then they'll "helpfully" point it out to the DM and the rest of the players. If the DM doesn't take care of it to their advantage or at least spit out a reason for it then they'll get ticked off and sulk for the rest of the game.

This is why I didn't game with such people in the days of 1E and 2E, and why I still don't today. If the issue does arise in 3E, I explain that there's a reason for it, and they'll figure it out if they're crafty, and then I remind them about our group's rule that the DM's decision is final while at the table, and we keep playing.

 

[JEL]

I miss second edition's customizable priests (going with generic, combat oriented clerics in 3e was a huge step backwards) and better monster descriptions (I like knowing stuff other than just how they fight). Both of these have been mentioned above, but I thought I'd give them a second.

 

[Gundark]

What about players that got into gaming when they were in their 20's a few years prior to 3E? I've spoken with some and even they say that 3E is missing something. I think there is something more than that.

Well I would argue that it is nostalgia. For exmaple when my wife began playing D&D it was 3rd ed. There was the whole newness aspect to it, and it was really fun for her to play. Now she's not scared when a goblin attacks the party or excited to be going down into the dungeon because the newness of the game has worn off. She still enjoys the game but if you asked her she would claim that it probably isn't the same.

 

[Rashak Mani]

I too miss those customizable clerics... every religion had very very different Cleric styles.

Did players min/max it too much ? Yep... but it made Clerics fun. In 3.X with easier multiclassing this kind of "open choice" would end up with terribly munchkin stuff.

I also miss long combats (in rounds since in real life they seem just as long) Combat is too quick.

Overall 3.X is way way better than 2nd Ed. and better than 1st Ed.