What is 3.0 & 3.5 missing that previous editions had?

[Lord Rasputin]

In no order ...

* Super customizeable clerics. Like everyone else said, it added flavor. I wonder if the best solution wouldn't be a three-tiered cleric class idea -- the current class, the old crusader class from the Player's Options: Spells and Magic (S&M ... hmmmm) and the cloistered cleric from the new UA for wusses like clerics of love.

* Elaborate monster descriptions. It helps design a more rounded encounter when you know what norkers eat.

Alright ... two things, I guess. And the 1e DMG -- the book that had a whole bunch of cool things that you could never remember where they were.

 

[Brennin Magalus]

In no order ...

* Super customizeable clerics. Like everyone else said, it added flavor. I wonder if the best solution wouldn't be a three-tiered cleric class idea -- the current class, the old crusader class from the Player's Options: Spells and Magic (S&M ... hmmmm) and the cloistered cleric from the new UA for wusses like clerics of love.

I second that, although I do not want crusaders back (clerics are militant enough) and I do not think cloistered clerics fit all wussy priests (I doubt priests of love are very studious, except where romance novels and the kama sutra are concerned).

 

[Ottergame]

* Elaborate monster descriptions. It helps design a more rounded encounter when you know what norkers eat.

You realize that for 99% of the monsters in the MM1 and 2, those descriptions are still perfectly valid. You can find those old books and use them to help flesh out you stable of monsters.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

I don't want to sound rude, JR, but none of the stuff you thought was good about the old D&D I like. It sounds like you are more interested in playing a war game or a computer RPG with fixed, constrictive rules.

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...)

A higher dependancy on Luck/good die rolls.

Clear Inbalance in favor of the DM.

Save or die.

Magic that was just, well, magic. A door that requires the key from room 2a to open. Period. No bloody dim-door, teleport, stoneshape, etc will work. Go find the key, damnit.


How are any of those considered valid game design decisions, much less FUN ones? You want to limit players to overcoming challenges in one way. Why shouldn't a group be able to circumvent a magicaly locked door? Why should smashing it down, teleporting, or stone shaping around the door be invalid actions?

I enjoy playing a game where I have -OPTIONS-, not restrictions. Why shouldn't I be able to play a halfling paladin with teleport scrolls and a maxed out Use Magic Device? Just because it doesn't fit your defintion of what the game should be?

Well, the magic door was just an example. My point was that in 3e, players KNOW what magic can and can't do. In 1e, If you want to restrict them from passing the door on level 3a until they level up a couple of times, you make the door only openable with a certain key. In 3e, my guys would just stoneshape around the door, try to find a mage with a high enough caster level to dispel the magic on the door, etc. All valid options. But if I have a campaign reason why they shouldn't be able to open the door, it gets spoiled. If I stick to the one key plan, I get blamed for not playing by the rules.

Save or die keeps the players on their toes. I absolutely hate it when a player says, "oh, a poisonous spider,it'lll need 20s to hit us. Add a save or die poison, and this becomes a more dramatic battle.

More luck involved is a good thing. As a player, when I crit something that was about to hack the party into little bitty sherrif meatballs, I get an adrenaline rush. When I methodically chop something down, I don't.

And your first statement is rather ironic, as I find 3e to be MUCH closer to a wargame than 1e. I hate having to keep up with every 5 foot step a character makes.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Well, the magic door was just an example. My point was that in 3e, players KNOW what magic can and can't do. In 1e, If you want to restrict them from passing the door on level 3a until they level up a couple of times, you make the door only openable with a certain key. In 3e, my guys would just stoneshape around the door, try to find a mage with a high enough caster level to dispel the magic on the door, etc. All valid options. But if I have a campaign reason why they shouldn't be able to open the door, it gets spoiled. If I stick to the one key plan, I get blamed for not playing by the rules.

So have the door/wall/whatever be resistant to magic; it's got, oh, SR 30 or something. No stoneshaping around it, no casting knock, and so forth. Sure, that's not going to work on characters of really high level, since they can punch through that, or dispel whatever magic granted that SR in the first place. But frankly, I don't see too many situations where a door could be expected to be an obstacle for a high-level party in any event.

Or, if you really want a door to stop even a high level party, make it an artifact, one that not only prevents the door, but the walls around it, from being bypassed. Even 3E, with its more methodical outlook, has artifacts that don't have to follow the written rules.

And your first statement is rather ironic, as I find 3e to be MUCH closer to a wargame than 1e. I hate having to keep up with every 5 foot step a character makes.

I agree with you there. That's why I don't use miniatures, or markers, or grids. I run combat descriptively, the exact same way I did in 1E and 2E. I use AoOs only when players take an action that I feel would draw one (like digging in a backpack in the midst of combat), not for movement. My players know this, and don't worry about feats like Combat Reflexes. Other than removing a few feats, though, it doesn't harm the game or remove options in the slightest.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

As for JRRNeiklot's list - that probably describes the 1E feeling to him. But my eyes on that list can only see either flaws that I am glad to have left behind (combat reduced to "I attack"), or concepts that really have no feeling at all, good or bad (no stats in the 40? Ftr20 with 100 hit points? They are just numbers, it's only a matter of scale). Or objections to 3E that just don't apply to 3E - in what game that isn't ultra-high level, or where the DM isn't going wild with treasure, death becomes "a delay"? In the totality of my 3E games, I count exactly one true resurrection out of dozens of deaths.

I was being overly simplistic with "I attack the ogre." My point was that 1e combat was simpler and therefore easier to roleplay than 3es grid system. A charcter charging across the field to engage the ogre is heroic. Methodically avoiding the orcs via tumbling and using various mechanical references to the feats or skillshe is using detracts from the role play experince, imo.

As for the true resurrections being uncommon in your games, I assume you haven't played high level games yet. I had a fighter die twice last session, and he was back up in the time it took the mage to teleport them out and the cleric to cast the spell. Then bang, they're tight back in the frey. Death? What's that?

Now, I don't mean to start a 1e vs 3e war, but the original poster asked what was missing from 3e, so I posted my opinion. I think 3e went a long way toward fixing the flaws of 1e, but went a little too far in mechanizing the whole thing. That is the main thing missing from 3e. It is far too sterile and mechanical. Maybe this owas done to sell miniatures, maybe not, but imo, it detracts too much from my suspension of disbelief, and makes the game much more like a war game than an rpg.

 

[Ottergame]

Well, the magic door was just an example. My point was that in 3e, players KNOW what magic can and can't do. In 1e, If you want to restrict them from passing the door on level 3a until they level up a couple of times, you make the door only openable with a certain key. In 3e, my guys would just stoneshape around the door, try to find a mage with a high enough caster level to dispel the magic on the door, etc. All valid options. But if I have a campaign reason why they shouldn't be able to open the door, it gets spoiled. If I stick to the one key plan, I get blamed for not playing by the rules.

Save or die keeps the players on their toes. I absolutely hate it when a player says, "oh, a poisonous spider,it'lll need 20s to hit us. Add a save or die poison, and this becomes a more dramatic battle.

More luck involved is a good thing. As a player, when I crit something that was about to hack the party into little bitty sherrif meatballs, I get an adrenaline rush. When I methodically chop something down, I don't.

And your first statement is rather ironic, as I find 3e to be MUCH closer to a wargame than 1e. I hate having to keep up with every 5 foot step a character makes.

But how does a player know if something they are fighting has a save or die poison? Unless EVERYTHING has save or die poison, then in which case you're players would be wracked with fear 24/7, and that's stresfful, not fun. Not many RL poisons are lethal, why should ALL poisons in the game be deadly?

To much luck in a game reduces a character to nothing but a chance on a die. Skillfulness and tactics are unimportant, as it all depends on the die.

As for the door... if you REALLY want to keep players from entering the area, create a teleport gateway that only activates once the group has some specific item. A locked door is an invitation for exploration, and should only prove to be an obstical at low levels.

I still say it seems like you want to play a computer role playing game, where there's hard and fast rules about what can and cannot be done, logic be damned.

 

[Ottergame]

A charcter charging across the field to engage the ogre is heroic. Methodically avoiding the orcs via tumbling and using various mechanical references to the feats or skillshe is using detracts from the role play experince, imo.

You mean to say that a rogue who tumbles through danger to get to the bad guy to steal the wand he's using to cast lightening bolts at the party is less heroic than the fighter who takes 20 rounds to beat through a stack of peons to do the same thing? Tumble is a good mechanic, though it needs some sort of counter. 15 or 25 DC isn't to hard to hit for a lowend midlevel rogue.

Besides, it's not like most people can do that anyways. A 13 dex fighter in full plate with a tower shield has a -15 to that check. Even maxing out Tumble at cross class skills is going to make even that 15 impossible to ever hit for a good many levels.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

But how does a player know if something they are fighting has a save or die poison? Unless EVERYTHING has save or die poison, then in which case you're players would be wracked with fear 24/7, and that's stresfful, not fun. Not many RL poisons are lethal, why should ALL poisons in the game be deadly?

To much luck in a game reduces a character to nothing but a chance on a die. Skillfulness and tactics are unimportant, as it all depends on the die.

As for the door... if you REALLY want to keep players from entering the area, create a teleport gateway that only activates once the group has some specific item. A locked door is an invitation for exploration, and should only prove to be an obstical at low levels.

I still say it seems like you want to play a computer role playing game, where there's hard and fast rules about what can and cannot be done, logic be damned.

Not all poisons should be lethal, but some are. Players SHOULd be scared of a spider until they findout that the poison only makes them break out in hives for a couple of days.

Too much luck is bad,I agree, but then so is too little.

I fail to see how 1e is more of a wargame experience than 3e. In 1e there weren't rules addressing every possible action, so the dm made up something on the fly. Now we have a mechanic for everything. On the surface, that would seem a good thing, but in reality, it slows down everything, and makes the character more about his neat abilities than his personality. You say 1e lacked logic, if so, it is ironic that 3e, having MORE logic - the mathematical operation of a computer - makes 3e less like a computer game.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

You mean to say that a rogue who tumbles through danger to get to the bad guy to steal the wand he's using to cast lightening bolts at the party is less heroic than the fighter who takes 20 rounds to beat through a stack of peons to do the same thing? Tumble is a good mechanic, though it needs some sort of counter. 15 or 25 DC isn't to hard to hit for a lowend midlevel rogue.

Besides, it's not like most people can do that anyways. A 13 dex fighter in full plate with a tower shield has a -15 to that check. Even maxing out Tumble at cross class skills is going to make even that 15 impossible to ever hit for a good many levels.

No, I meant that the description of the tactic seems less heroic. Not the action itself. It's all about the numbers, not the role play.