What is 3.0 & 3.5 missing that previous editions had?

[Zappo]

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.

I understand. However, I don't agree that simpler equals easier to roleplay. Lots of OD&D/2E combats (haven't played 1E) tended to be reduced to "I attack" "You hit" "It attacks" "It misses" over and over again. There's only so many ways you can describe a normal attack before it gets boring. In 3E, with lots of options, you are encouraged to perform cool and varied actions.

As for the true resurrections being uncommon in your games, I assume you haven't played high level games yet.

I DMed a campaign which went to 17th-19th level, and played a couple of epic level games. The first had the one true res, and the second had only one death so far and the player chose to make another character. The true res in the first game was before the party had access to 9th level magic, and was obtained by an NPC. In payment, the resurrected character (a powerful psion) was forced to accept a lesser psionicist as an apprentice; a major event for the character. The party cleric never cast it, despite a half dozen deaths, because he didn't want to spend the XP cost (in 3E, and everyone including the deceased agreed with him) or the party didn't have so many diamonds (in 3.5E). True res costs a lot, both in 3E and in 3.5E though the actual cost is different. Your fighter died twice - that's 50000 gold down the drain (and they have to be in diamonds, which don't grow on trees). Unless the party wealth was substantially above the average - which is well and good but has consequences - this is a big hit.

Everyone I gamed with generally prefers making another character rather than being raised. I actually had to increase the XP penalty for new characters to discourage this. Getting killed by a randomly encountered poisonous creature through one unavoidable and unlucky roll has no meaning at all. It was not my fault, there's nothing I could do about it. It's just statistics. Could as well get raised, since any other character would have got killed in the same way.

Now when someone gets killed, the player feels something - I could have tumbled away, I should have used expertise, we should have paid more attention to the tracks in the dungeon. My fault. Let's see if the next character works better.

It is not a coincidence that making suitable random encounters for every location was the first big change to the game which I made when I was learning how to DM. The second was dropping them entirely. And I allowed a neutralize poison to revive a character if cast in the next round. All of those changes only improved my games, so I must deduce that the old editions feel doesn't lie there. Not for me anyway.

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.

And thank you for that.

 

[MerricB]

I understand. However, I don't agree that simpler equals easier to roleplay. Lots of OD&D/2E combats (haven't played 1E) tended to be reduced to "I attack" "You hit" "It attacks" "It misses" over and over again. There's only so many ways you can describe a normal attack before it gets boring.

Too true. I've seen AD&D combat played that way over, and over, and over again. Even when you try to spice it up with descriptions it still returns to "I attack" if you're a fighter over and over again.

When you try to move to other modes of combat, the original systems were overly complicated, and the replacement systems in UA, though better, weren't that inspiring.

3E is sometimes too powerful a system, requiring a greater commitment to learning the rules than 1E (or at least regarding how 1E was played by most people - there were lots of rules that were ignored). However, for someone who understands 3E well enough, it's just as easy to run fast, cinematic combat as in 1E.

I miss modules being released by TSR/WotC. Dungeon isn't quite the same, and getting non-WotC products is almost impossible where I live. Mail-order would work, but I prefer to see a product, and there are other things to spend money on... I'm most likely to buy things from a store 'on impulse' rather than plan ahead for them.

Cheers!

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

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.

The problem we found in 1e/2e is you were outright disallowed from crazy heroic movement. The mooks could always fill in the gaps. Always.

In 3e we are seeing PCs take real tactical risks, tumbling through or even sucking up the AoOs to get into a (mutually) dangerous position. That is meaty heroism and once we have tasted it 1e/2e is but a thin gruel.

"I attack. He attacks. I attack. He attacks." You can pretty it up with some superficial verbage, but a sow is still a pig.

 

[broghammerj]

Here my miss list

A few random things I miss about 1e/2e. I admit that there is a certain gestault about my points, but I don't think I would classify them as nostalgic. In my mind the two terms are very different.

1. A sense of completness. The idea that these are my books and the options/rules we use come from them. I have in my hand what I need to play. Every player has those books and we agree on that fact (minus a few MINOR house rules). Now they're are so many 3rd party suppliers that have added to the market, I feel overwhelmed. I realize the GM sets the rules on what books get used in his/her games, but many players have their own opinions on optional books. There is no longer a collective agreement if you will, amongst all of us. The variety present now has added infusion of creativity to RPGs and I see that as good, but there is a loss of control/completeness. Many will respond, well you only need the "core" books to play. Yes, thats true but I can't really set down to play DND with a group of total strangers and expect to play the same game anymore. The universalness to the game is gone. There are now 875 ranger variants depending on who's book you want to buy. It sucks if you didn't buy the same one as the GM.

2. A sense of standard. Others have alluded to this. There is no longer fighters fighting, theives stealing, etc. I think somehow it goes beyond this. We jokingly reference the idea of being "Monte Cooked" after we played his adventure the Banewarrens. The players just battled a Minotaur Warrior Lv1. Everyone asked why can't it be just a Minotaur. What the heck does a level of warrior matter. Everything has to be tricked up, templated, prestige classed. IMHO variety and freedom is good for the players to define their characters, but it permeates into everything and has gone too far. The great red wyrm is no longer a good encounter. It's now got to be the great, demonic, undead, colossal, half celestial vermillion dragon. JR point out that too many restrictions are better than too many options. I think that this falls along those lines.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

2. A sense of standard. Others have alluded to this. There is no longer fighters fighting, theives stealing, etc. I think somehow it goes beyond this. We jokingly reference the idea of being "Monte Cooked" after we played his adventure the Banewarrens. The players just battled a Minotaur Warrior Lv1. Everyone asked why can't it be just a Minotaur. What the heck does a level of warrior matter. Everything has to be tricked up, templated, prestige classed. IMHO variety and freedom is good for the players to define their characters, but it permeates into everything and has gone too far. The great red wyrm is no longer a good encounter. It's now got to be the great, demonic, undead, colossal, half celestial vermillion dragon. JR point out that too many restrictions are better than too many options. I think that this falls along those lines.

"Sounds like a player and DM problem to me."

It is completely legitimate to prefer that style. But DM and player choices have led you astray.

If you flip through some of the old Gygax modules, e.g. the G-series, you will find "Monte Cooked" monsters. He just used ad hoc rules instead of standardized ones.

 

[Numion]

The CR system has been used as a way to "balance" the encounters. So even though there could be a great many variations to the power of the monsters, the CR rating system washes away the suspense and lets you know that the GM would never run you up against something that you couldn't defeat.

And as I have said, you can ignore the CR system and your fine. But, how many new GM's are going to ignore it? How many new players feel it is unfair to run players on encounter that have too high of a CR? The answer of course is unknown, but I've started to see the blandness and lack of fear creep into games and I don't think it is a good thing.

You're wrong on this one. The EL / CR guidelines in the DMG for creating adventures clearly state that 15 % of encounters should be 1-3 grades above the PCs level and 5 % 4+ grades over. So if the DM in question designs 3e adventures as they were intended, players shouldn't expect only "balanced" encounters as you put it.

It's all in the DMG; RTFM

(Reminder: EL of 4+ the group average level will quite likely get someone killed)

 

[RFisher]

Arbitrary death is fine in a pure wargame, but it seems illogical to criticize 3e for its lack unless you want a wargamey feel.

Arbitrary death is extremely rare no matter what edition you're playing. Character death is almost always a consequence of character action. Don't want to risk death? Run from poisonous monsters. Don't go opening locked chests that don't belong to you. Don't go skulking around trap & monster filled ruins.

Arbitrary death may happen occasionally, but it is pretty rare.

Edit: I should cite Robilar as a OD&D/OAD&D PC that showed that a careful PC can adventure and survive despite the existance of save or die mechanics.

 

[RFisher]

One thing that keeps coming to my mind every time I read this thread is the one thing I really like about 3e: It tends to give you consequences instead of restrictions. Sure, you can give Rogue skills to your Fighter, but it is going to cost you. Your Wizard can wear plate mail and fight with a sword, but you might not like the consequences.

This is really just a preference about how the rules are written, though. It doesn't have as much effect on play since the DM just ends up choosing a consequence when a restriction gets broken.

 

[diaglo]

It doesn't have as much effect on play since the DM just ends up choosing a consequence when a restriction gets broken.

wrong terminology.

it isn't broken. it is shafted.

 

[Voadam]

A few random things I miss about 1e/2e. I admit that there is a certain gestault about my points, but I don't think I would classify them as nostalgic. In my mind the two terms are very different.

1. A sense of completness. The idea that these are my books and the options/rules we use come from them. I have in my hand what I need to play. Every player has those books and we agree on that fact (minus a few MINOR house rules). Now they're are so many 3rd party suppliers that have added to the market, I feel overwhelmed. I realize the GM sets the rules on what books get used in his/her games, but many players have their own opinions on optional books. There is no longer a collective agreement if you will, amongst all of us. The variety present now has added infusion of creativity to RPGs and I see that as good, but there is a loss of control/completeness. Many will respond, well you only need the "core" books to play. Yes, thats true but I can't really set down to play DND with a group of total strangers and expect to play the same game anymore. The universalness to the game is gone. There are now 875 ranger variants depending on who's book you want to buy. It sucks if you didn't buy the same one as the GM.

2. A sense of standard. Others have alluded to this. There is no longer fighters fighting, theives stealing, etc. I think somehow it goes beyond this. We jokingly reference the idea of being "Monte Cooked" after we played his adventure the Banewarrens. The players just battled a Minotaur Warrior Lv1. Everyone asked why can't it be just a Minotaur. What the heck does a level of warrior matter. Everything has to be tricked up, templated, prestige classed. IMHO variety and freedom is good for the players to define their characters, but it permeates into everything and has gone too far. The great red wyrm is no longer a good encounter. It's now got to be the great, demonic, undead, colossal, half celestial vermillion dragon. JR point out that too many restrictions are better than too many options. I think that this falls along those lines.

2e had a lot of books too. Complete x, Tome of Magic, players options, DM Option, FR sourcebooks, Birthright sourcebooks, etc. Splatbooks did not originate in 3e. Even in 1e there was UA, OA, dungeoneers survivial guide, wilderness survival guide, etc.

It is easier to use straight monsters in 3e than tricked out ones. When running off the fly it is much easier to use a straight ogre out of the MM over a leveled and advanced one with a template.

Previous editions had nonstandard monsters. Bone hill had an undead casting spells. 2e had Van richtens guides to every monster he hunted providing different powers and variations. The guidelines for doing so are much more standardized. Liches make more sense as 3e templates for spellcasters than as their own standard monster type.