What is 3.0 & 3.5 missing that previous editions had?

[MerricB]

Wasn't he the one that had unlimited numbers of orc followers that he used to check for traps/etc by sending the orcs in first?

That's right; though they weren't quite unlimited - Gary's mentioned he only had a couple left when he won through to the end.

The threat of death is a large part of the thrill of any D&D adventure, but in the case of arbitrary death, where your actions have no bearing on whether or not you die, that's bad. (If your DM only sends you up against lots of poisonous monsters, wherever you go, then you're going to get bitten at some point...)

Cheers!

 

[Phoenix]

That's right; though they weren't quite unlimited - Gary's mentioned he only had a couple left when he won through to the end.

The threat of death is a large part of the thrill of any D&D adventure, but in the case of arbitrary death, where your actions have no bearing on whether or not you die, that's bad. (If your DM only sends you up against lots of poisonous monsters, wherever you go, then you're going to get bitten at some point...)

Cheers!

The one interesting point of death in 3.x is that it is slowly being conquered by an evolutionary process within the editions. As you play through 1st edition many people noticed that 12th level was extremely high, and retired (the rules supported this). In 2nd edition it was closer to 16th level (give or take), though the rules supported higher level adventuring. 3rd edition gives 20th level+ as high level, with no stopping for retiring.

With PCs having access to higher level abilities, faster than the old editions, you must surmise that NPCs are similar. Even the mythical +1 broadsword....oops, that's what I loved about 2nd edition....is now a cheap toy past 5th level (if you keep it that long). Evolution in magic (as opposed to our science) is allowing more and more common people the chance to access magic, and eventually this means, cheat death.

Sure it costs a lot of money to cast any death-cheating spells, and XP costs can be annoying...but in the end powerful NPCs and PCs alike can afford to live forever (give or take a few days). Did your PC die in a horrible way in the middle of a dungeon in the middle of nowhere? We'll just teleport back to town and buy a ressurection without breaking a sweat.

Sure this can easily be altered in house rules, but the Core Rules seem to encourage the use of all of the given abilities...even allowing a class that ressurects as a class feature! (Pick the WotC product boys and girls, you too can win a cupie doll!)

Think of 1e as 1890 Cthulhu, 2e as 1920s, and 3e as 1990s....and smash your PCs into little pieces so hard that they can never afford ressurections, or are too scared to.........muuuuhahahahahahaaa.......pass me my pills please...

 

[MerricB]

...even allowing a class that ressurects as a class feature! (Pick the WotC product boys and girls, you too can win a cupie doll!)

That'd be the Healer class from the Miniatures Handbook. (The Healer mini and its Unicorn companion mini are in Archfiends, btw )

Interesting analysis. Certainly the 3E designers wanted you to actually _use_ the abilities you gained at higher levels. A common trick in 1E modules is to deny the use of those abilities.

I'm just waiting for the introduction of Morganti blades.

Cheers!

 

[Whisper72]

Just to throw in my own 2 cts,

I believe that the missing 'soul' as some describe it is exactly those 'flaws' that have been patched in 3.x

I loved the fact that each class was distinctly different, with own save structure, progression speeds and own powers/'feats' that no other class could attain. Now anyone can take feats and skills make a standard fighter do pretty much the same as a ranger.

I also think that the new save structure, tough it may make more sense, has killed some of the wonder and feel. Everything uses the same type of rolls. No tables to look at what kind of save to make and what class you were. Everything requires a calculator and uses the same ingredients as any other character or monster.

I loved the fact that combat was simple. What 'you make a move action watch out for the attack of opportunity' etc. Some say 'but you have more options in the new rules' My whole problem is that the rules are now so sweeping and generic, that EVERYTHING is now covered by rules. The whole fun part of 1st Ed was the fact that there were so many things where the DM simply had to make things up as you go along, because not everything was completely clear.

Combat was mechanically simplistic maybe, what with a simple 'I attack', but the juiciness depended upon the descriptions of the players and the DM's in how they interpreted things. Now everything is cast into cold rules. A lot less is left to the imagination of the players and the DM seems like.

I myself think that the old system left much more room for DM interpretation. It not only left room, it forced the DM to think about things him or herself.

With the new rules I get the feeling you could play against yourself. If you take a module, just roll through, and computergame like, you steer your character through the adventure almost without the need for a DM.

Anyhoo, just my own feelings and thoughts about the issue.

 

[WizarDru]

Even the mythical +1 broadsword....oops, that's what I loved about 2nd edition....is now a cheap toy past 5th level (if you keep it that long).

I miss the wonder and uniqueness of magic items. Getting a +1 sword or a +1 ring of protection has lost its specialness. Hey, with X gold I could have made this myself. In addition, I’ve noticed that everyone seems to prefer to trade in items that are not optimized for their vision of their character in lieu of getting some preferred item.

You know, there are plenty of things I can agree with in some of the above posts, or at the very least acknowledge as valid if I don't. But this is just plain silly. I remember distinctly under 1e how items became just as obsolete, and after you got that +3 sword, that +1 sword was merely so much junk, for all intents and purposes. A 3rd level character would cherish that +1 sword, but at 10th level, he was finding them in treasure hordes all the time...and merely considered them sources of x.p. or a 'movable feast', as it were.

The specialness of magic items is tied to the individual game and the DM, not the edition. I remember playing in a 1e game where I only got two magic items from 3rd-8th level. I also remember playing in a 1e game where we got a dozen at 4th. 3e has merely codified a consistent system for creating those items, something that was pretty much a 'invent your own system' concept during 1e for wizard and similar characters.

I loved the fact that combat was simple. What 'you make a move action watch out for the attack of opportunity' etc. Some say 'but you have more options in the new rules' My whole problem is that the rules are now so sweeping and generic, that EVERYTHING is now covered by rules. The whole fun part of 1st Ed was the fact that there were so many things where the DM simply had to make things up as you go along, because not everything was completely clear.

Heh. My players would beg to differ. I can assure you, there are still plenty of things that 3e doesn't explicitly cover. But with 3e, I have a framework for a solution that sounds right. Under 1e, DM fiat was an expected part of the system. A creative DM could make that a strength, a poor one a liability. The biggest problem, though, was a lack of universality. I couldn't port my knowledge of the game as readily, since each DM had so many customizations to fill in the gaps.

What I think 3.x lacks that previous editions had varies. I think Basic D&D had accessability that no other edition, including OD&D, has yet to better. The Moldvay Red Box set was the single best release of D&D, IMHO, in that it was all in one box, got you up and running in an hour, and was well-written and fun. AD&D had a sense of mastery about it...it didn't pretend it was accessible, and promised rich rewards to those brave enough to learn it. For all of it's flaws, learning it was like an adventure unto itself. It was something of a journey, really, looking up unfamilar words, researching historical references and discovering mathematical concepts.

And 2e.....? Well, it had the color blue, I guess.

 

[milotha]

You know, there are plenty of things I can agree with in some of the above posts, or at the very least acknowledge as valid if I don't. But this is just plain silly. I remember distinctly under 1e how items became just as obsolete, and after you got that +3 sword, that +1 sword was merely so much junk, for all intents and purposes. A 3rd level character would cherish that +1 sword, but at 10th level, he was finding them in treasure hordes all the time...and merely considered them sources of x.p. or a 'movable feast', as it were.

The specialness of magic items is tied to the individual game and the DM, not the edition. I remember playing in a 1e game where I only got two magic items from 3rd-8th level. I also remember playing in a 1e game where we got a dozen at 4th. 3e has merely codified a consistent system for creating those items, something that was pretty much a 'invent your own system' concept during 1e for wizard and similar characters.

Yes, at 10th level in 1/2ed, +1 magic weapons were sold all the time, but the amount of game time that it took your character to go from 3rd to 10th level was a lot longer under 1/2ed than under 3.Xed. That +1 sword had a longer shelf life as a useful weapon in 1/2ed. Also, note that when you find a weapon, you have no control over what type of weapon you found.

In 1ed/2ed, if the weapon wasn't your character's chosen weapon type, then you either sold it for the money OR often kept it and adopted it as your chosen weapon. This often resulted in people using the more esoteric weapons in the game. Seldom at 1-7th level did GMs allow you to buy a +1 weapon of your chosen type.

In 3.X ed, I have seen characters sell the +1 weapon and then buy the +1 weapon of their chosen type, or for that matter, create the +1 weapon of their chosen type. It's simply easier to get your hands on these items in 3.xed with all the magic item creation feats. This has really changed the tenor of the game as it stands in the core 3.Xed books.

 

[jessemock]

In your opinion what is that special something that the earlier editions had that all of us old gamers are now missing with the new editions?

When was the last time D&D came up with something as neat as a Beholder? There's your answer.

The new game designers are very competent at mechanics, but you can take a guy like Monte Cook, shake him up and down for a million years, and you'll never get anything like the drow out of him.

In a way, the distinction between the 1st and 3rd editions is minimal: mechanically, 3rd's a much better way to play--but to play what? AD&D.

That's where the fact that the distinction is minimal becomes important: no one working on D&D today has any real creative fire.

Plus, the childproof writing sucks.

 

[Calico_Jack73]

When was the last time D&D came up with something as neat as a Beholder? There's your answer.

The new game designers are very competent at mechanics, but you can take a guy like Monte Cook, shake him up and down for a million years, and you'll never get anything like the drow out of him.

That's where the fact that the distinction is minimal becomes important: no one working on D&D today has any real creative fire.

Plus, the childproof writing sucks.

Yeah, why the heck is the succubus in the MM wearing anything at all? Back in the day you had pictures of topless mermaids among other things. D&D has definitely gotten child-friendly.

On a more serious note I have to agree with you on the creativity issue. Most of the new monsters are just stats to fight against rather than something to add fluff to the setting. The Drow, Mind Flayers, and Githyanki all added something to the game overall.

 

[WizarDru]

Yes, at 10th level in 1/2ed, +1 magic weapons were sold all the time, but the amount of game time that it took your character to go from 3rd to 10th level was a lot longer under 1/2ed than under 3.Xed. That +1 sword had a longer shelf life as a useful weapon in 1/2ed. Also, note that when you find a weapon, you have no control over what type of weapon you found.

In 1ed/2ed, if the weapon wasn't your character's chosen weapon type, then you either sold it for the money OR often kept it and adopted it as your chosen weapon. This often resulted in people using the more esoteric weapons in the game. Seldom at 1-7th level did GMs allow you to buy a +1 weapon of your chosen type.

In 3.X ed, I have seen characters sell the +1 weapon and then buy the +1 weapon of their chosen type, or for that matter, create the +1 weapon of their chosen type. It's simply easier to get your hands on these items in 3.xed with all the magic item creation feats. This has really changed the tenor of the game as it stands in the core 3.Xed books.

Well, my experiences go exactly counter to yours. In one of my games, the fighter switched up to a better sword three times during the course of one campaign, going from 1st to 8th. This campaign lasted less than the span of a year. This would be 1983 or 1984, I believe. This experience was not unique. My experience has also been that most people never got their 1e characters all the way to retirement, so their impression of how often items got switched in 1e is based on that. If you only got a chance at one magic sword and found a magic mace during 2 levels and 2 years of game play, you're certainly going to suffer culture shock when you do the same thing in 2 months of 3e.

Under 3.0, I saw the spell Greater Magic Weapon used much more than the purchase of magic weapons, up until the mid-teens, when the players began leveraging treasure and influence to get weapons that were personalized to them. As with all of these issue, though, it's a question of the DM keeping a close eye on the treasure that comes into the PCs hands. In a game where magic items are more rare, what you describe is more likely, but still not certain. In more magic rich environments, even less so. Again, under 3e I have epic-level characters who have turned up the chance to use an epic weapon over their preferred weapon, because it wasn't their weapon of choice.

And this doesn't even touch on the Monty Haul style of gaming which was pretty prevalent during the early 80s, when everyone was playing D&D, as it was the latest craze.

 

[RFisher]

Wasn't he the one that had unlimited numbers of orc followers that he used to check for traps/etc by sending the orcs in first?

He took a bunch of orc followers with him to the Tomb of Horrors.

I'm pretty certain that he went into the Temple of Elemental Evil completely alone. (His single orc follower on that trip stayed outside.)

But I think the orc followers thing is also a good example of how a cautious character can manage the risks of "save or die".