What is 3.0 & 3.5 missing that previous editions had?

[Ridley's Cohort]

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".

The disposable orc followers thing is also a good example of something most DMs would quash.

 

[kenjib]

The disposable orc followers thing is also a good example of something most DMs would quash.

Yeah, but it's funny as heck.

 

[Phoenix]

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 one to agree, in fact the earlier editions focused a little too much on sword swinging most of the time, something that would probably take waaay too long to get into and spawn god knows how many other posts.

My beef is simply this. I can accept the use of abilities that characters gain, and why shouldn't they be able to effectly use spells to their advantage. But when it gets to the point that the DM has to set up special circumstances to keep a PC dead....

I don't go out of my way to kill my PCs, but when one turns around and asks if he can buy a scroll of ressurection.....it's spankin' time!

Adventuring should be dangerous, otherwise we encourage PCs to discover ways to destroy everything, and survive it too easily. Perhaps the amount of options given to players in 3.x was overkill? Or perhaps it is simply too easy within the rules to gain such powers.....

Yet again I know that it comes down to how you play the game, but the game sure encourages this type of play....

 

[MerricB]

There's a certain disjunction between the desire to have a 'realistic' campaign world and the desire for continuing characters. When one reaches levels 9 and greater, there is a substantial amount of time invested in the character and campaign (even with 3E's more rapid rate of advancement).

Even in original D&D (as played by Gary Gygax and his friends), resurrection was by no means unknown. As he said recently, "I never lost any of my main PCs, although most of them 'died' at least once and were resurrected or wished back to life by their fellow adventurers." (see here)

Conversely, AD&D had the limit on number of resurrections allowed, in two manners: the System Shock roll, and the initial Constitution limit. Of course, it should also be noted that these rules were being developed in an environment of extremely frequent play. For many of us, playing once a week is impossible!

I tend to think of 3E D&D (as it is presented in the core books) as being a lot like Dragarea from Steven Brust's Vlad Taltos books. (Jhereg, Yendi, et al). High stakes, possibility of death, but there's enough magic around to overcome things if needed.

I think it's still true that permanent death is a real possibility at the lower levels of experience. Once play reaches 8th+ level, then raise dead and similar spells become available. After that, the course of the campaign becomes more and more dependent on the DM. In AD&D, characters would retire at 12th level; such is no longer always the case - although I'm sure it happens for many groups because the DM is not happy in running campaigns at the higher levels of experience.

Where 3E really succeeds is in giving the power to groups to make the game their own. There is a huge amount of tinkering that everyone does with the game that makes each campaign very distinct. The prestige classes and feats a campaign makes available are the most obvious points of difference, but the rate of advancement and magic proliferation also vary from game to game, although low-magic isn't quite as easy in 3E without disturbing the balance between the classes.

Of course, it comes at a price: a game where the wealth of options can overwhelm people. I still like AD&D for its simpler structure. Although there are rules that I find nonsensical (the overly complex initiative system for one!), and lesser goals of the game - "we don't do everything, we just do one thing well" - make it still an exceptional RPG.

There is a certain world implied by the AD&D world, and another world implied by the 3E world, both of which have many things in common. One thing that is layered on top of that is the actualisation of those worlds as shown in adventure modules. The GDQ series, the S series, T1-4 and A1-4 define to a large extent what AD&D is about. Personally, I think most of the other AD&D modules diverge from that vision.

Because those module came at the start of things, when they were pretty much the only adventures that could be found, there's much more of a shared conception of what AD&D was (and is, if you still play it!)

3E lacks that shared vision. Unfortunately, there aren't official adventures that have the same universal appeal (although I think the Sunless Citadel comes closest). Even though Necromancer Games and other d20 System publishers may be publishing excellent adventures, they aren't as universally known as the original AD&D adventures.

That, then, is what I most miss about 1E: the shared experience given by those original adventures.

Cheers!

 

[jasper]

That, then, is what I most miss about 1E: the shared experience given by those original adventures... Merric
The winner and ender of the thread Merric. Jasper cast regenerate on his eye and then slips an invisible ring of regeneration on his big toe. First edition of course.

 

[RFisher]

Because those module came at the start of things, when they were pretty much the only adventures that could be found, there's much more of a shared conception of what AD&D was (and is, if you still play it!)

Well, my original AD&D groups never used modules. I didn't experience any of the AD&D modules until after I'd stopped playing AD&D (c. 1990). In fact, the current campaign I'm playing in is based on my request that someone run some of those classic modules I never got to experience!

It may be that those modules still influenced our conception of what AD&D was, though. We were certainly aware of them.

3E lacks that shared vision. Unfortunately, there aren't official adventures that have the same universal appeal (although I think the Sunless Citadel comes closest). Even though Necromancer Games and other d20 System publishers may be publishing excellent adventures, they aren't as universally known as the original AD&D adventures.

Argh! Must...resist...ranting...about...Sunless...

That module was the last straw that made me swear never to run a module again. (Though I may be starting to reconsider that position again.)

That, then, is what I most miss about 1E: the shared experience given by those original adventures.

Good answer.

 

[El Ravager]

Argh! Must...resist...ranting...about...Sunless...

I'm curious, what was it that you didn't like about Sunless Citadel?

======
El Rav

 

[Phoenix]

There is a certain world implied by the AD&D world, and another world implied by the 3E world, both of which have many things in common. One thing that is layered on top of that is the actualisation of those worlds as shown in adventure modules. The GDQ series, the S series, T1-4 and A1-4 define to a large extent what AD&D is about. Personally, I think most of the other AD&D modules diverge from that vision.

Because those module came at the start of things, when they were pretty much the only adventures that could be found, there's much more of a shared conception of what AD&D was (and is, if you still play it!)

3E lacks that shared vision. Unfortunately, there aren't official adventures that have the same universal appeal (although I think the Sunless Citadel comes closest). Even though Necromancer Games and other d20 System publishers may be publishing excellent adventures, they aren't as universally known as the original AD&D adventures.

That, then, is what I most miss about 1E: the shared experience given by those original adventures.

Cheers!

Unfortunately this is one of the larger problems of D&D as a whole, in the older editions the prospect of dealing with NPCs of 12th level or so delivered a certain amount of respect from the PCs. Now when I see the stats for Nerof I think....where did they go wrong?

Altering the experiance point system has made many of the NPCs weaker than their original counterparts. Because the new system is heavily based around min/maxing (come on, rant away.....) it lends itself to the designing of the 'perfect' character more so than the old rules.

Looking at the stats of the 'legendary' D&D NPCs, I no longer feel the same wonder at their abilities and tales. Only how indestructable or hopeless they would really be to use in a game. <Note: add the understanding that all games are different, blah blah>

 

[Altalazar]

The only thing I miss is speciality priests. I think everything else in 3E is an improvement. While perhaps I could quibble with some changes in 3.5E to some of the spells, that isn't stricly speaking an issue here because they were fine in 3E originally.

I think a lot of the differences people see here have nothing to do with the system and everything to do with how individual games were run by individual DMs. (As has already been said here).

I had a blast with 1E and 2E for many years. I wouldn't trade those for anything. I still love those old characters. But I think 3E is a far superior system, and it hasn't done anything to stifle my creativity.

(And I intend to bring speciality priests back into 3E - I'm already well on my way - I rebuilt my old pantheon of gods that I had set up as my own custom speciality priests back in 2E - maybe one of these days I'll put them up on a web page or something and share them with the world).

 

[milotha]

Looking at the stats of the 'legendary' D&D NPCs, I no longer feel the same wonder at their abilities and tales. Only how indestructable or hopeless they would really be to use in a game. <Note: add the understanding that all games are different, blah blah>

I agree. I think that a lot of this is the fact that a 12th level character was a lot more powerful in 1/2ed than a 12th level character is in 3.Xed for the following reasons:

In 1/2ed, a lot of skills and abilities had no game mechanic associated with them. As a result, if you wanted to try do one of these actions or skills, you simply turned to the DM and said "I attempt X" and a good DM would make a fair ruling as to how that would play out. You could do a lot of things that weren't on your chracter sheet by being creative. If there was no mechanic, you could always make one up. I played with a lot of players that made up character concepts, with GM approval, that involved having skills and abilities that weren't written into the rules.

Really in 1/2ed, besides the spell levels, what changed about your character from level to level - Your AC, THAC0, HP, and Saves. I'm certain we all saw 12th level fighters with high HP and really low Saves, THAC0 and AC. There really wasn't much more to being a fighter. (Yeah, you needed a good weapon) , but you were pretty much made.

Now in 3.Xed, if you want your character to do X, you have to put points in the X skill. Is this a bad thing? No, but instead of just saying- I have this great character concept of the survivalist who can swim, hunt, fish, climb, etc - now, you have to divide up those small number of skill points into a number of chosen skills. As a result at first level, you can have a character that isn't really good at anything. Yes, there are ways of min/maxing this, but in the end you have a character that can't do a lot of things. This makes the character seem less effective. Wow, I'm 12th level and I have a 0 in all these skills.

The same is true for the addition of all the feats. Look at 12th level there are still all these things I can't do. In addition, say for a fighter, at 12th level you still can have poor ref and will saves.

I'm not saying this is a bad thing. It's just that the flavor of the game has changed. In 3.Xed if you want to do something now, there's probably a skill for it, a mechanic for it, or a feat required, and if you don't have it, you can't do it. Whereas in 1ed/2ed- there were many GMs that would just say - your character can do Y skill. That's reasonable for the concept and class and level.

I guess that I think that more rules don't equate with more fun. All these options, and I just feel that the characters in 3.Xed are more limited and more narrowly defined. It's less creativite thinking and more rules.