What is 3.0 & 3.5 missing that previous editions had?

[Will]

Well, first, I found Basic - AD&D 2e nearly unplayable. I've been in a few games, I have books for 1e and 2e, but... never enjoyed it. The systems were terribly incoherent.

As for better things... I agree with Gothmog.

I liked 2e customized clerics, I liked more info on what monsters are, and I find the reliance on items maddening in 3e.

I liked other details, like lists of what various materials did. I also enjoyed some of the art in the old books better.

 

[francisca]

Things 3.x is missing that previous editions had...

- Inconsistant rules.
- Having to reference a chart nearly every time you made a roll.
- Having certain classes unavailable to you based on character race (dwarves couldn't be mages, elves couldn't be druids, nobody except humans could be paladins, etc).
- Trying to remember whether it was good to roll high or roll low on the roll you were making.
- Having dozens of low-quality suppliments shoveled out by TSR every year (with a rare gem every now and then).
- Everybody playing as a mage or multiclassed mage because mages were clearly the most powerful core class (except for the poor guy who showed up late at the gaming table and had to be the cleric).
- Dual-weilding being superior to every other fighting style.
- Class kits that were more overpowered than any official 3e prestige class or core class to date. Bladesingers, anyone?
- The horribly overcomplicated and nonsensical concept known as THAC0.

I quit 1E near the end of it's run, and skipped 2E altogether. Was THAC0 really that bad?
And I never objected to the charts.
And yes, now we have others besides TSR shoveling crap out.

 

[RFisher]

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?

A less steep power curve. This may be the #1 factor that has caused 3e to drop from near the top of my list of favored systems.

It's kind of ironic, because I used to complain whenever an increase in a RPG stat didn't provide an actual effect in the game. Well 3e reduced that a lot, but rather than increasing granularity to do so, it cranked up the power curve.

 

[Desdichado]

I don't like the old art. Then again, I'm also one of those types that insists that D&D is fantasy, not medieval. It should be fantastic, it doesn't have to be realistic, it should be cool. Even to a jaded old fart like me who would wear Don Johnson white cotton suits, or Duran Duran poofy shirts if I could without looking like a complete idiot, the characters in the newer D&D books look cool; they look fantastic, and they look like something that I could believe in a stylish, pulpy, action-movie (or TV show) type of fantasy. And frankly, I don't have a problem with D&D being that kind of fantasy. Levelling and the power escalation of a typical D&D game almost mandates that style, IMO. To get a different style, I tend to feel like I need to introduce a variety of house rules.

Then again, to reiterate, my games are not Medieval. I tend to look more towards John Carter of Mars, Robert E. Howard, Pirates of the Caribbean, The X-Files and Raiders of the Lost Ark all thrown together into a gestalt gaming experience. So images of classical medieval knights don't really work for me.

 

[Nifelhein]

Joshua,

And what happens when they say in the skills section that there is a limit, to what is possible and what is impossible, then you have people swimming up a waterfall... that would be impossible to my eyes, unless magic is at work, of course...

 

[Piratecat]

Dark Jezter et al, this thread is about the good stuff that previous editions of the game had. Please don't hijack it to bitch about the things you don't like.

 

[Mouseferatu]

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.)

I said earlier that the art was the single best example of the change in focus/attitude that I lamented.

The lack of monster descriptions is the second.

While I agree that, in a game book, the mechanics should take priority, and that mood/feel is largely up to the DM, I preferred when the books at least made a concerted effort to provide a baseline. I liked being able to look up what sort of lair a displacer beast was likely to have, or what flumphs ate.

It's always easier to tweak away from a common baseline, IMO. I don't believe it would harm the game one bit to include this sort of info for those who wanted it, since it requires a grand total of zero effort for those who don't to house rule it out. That's the beauty of non-mechanical details.

 

[arwink]

I said earlier that the eart was the single best example of the change in focus/attitude that I lamented.

The lack of monster descriptions is the second.

Are we really missing that though? Sure, it's not being done by Wizards in the base rules set, but flicking through something like Monsternomicon and a couple of the other monster books out there, it's not like flavor-free monster descriptions are impossible to find.

I get the same feeling from the art - the core rule books tend to have a lot of static, bland art, but when you start branching out into the 3rd party stuff there's a lot more story-inspiring art out there.

If you're fanatically drawing a line between D20 and DnD, then I suppose there is something missing, but for me it's still all there - I'm just looking to different companies to give me the kind of DnD I'm used to.

 

[MerricB]

I miss...

* The world defined by the class/race restrictions and level limits.
* Gary Gygax writing adventures with the D&D label on them.

Cheers!

 

[Son_of_Thunder]

I hate to admit it but...

The cultists

Blood sacrifices

Heavy metal music

Dimly lit body odor infested parent’s basements

Rolling for stats

simplicity



Soul

As much as I hate to admit it, I do happen to agree with diaglo, especially the Soul part.

Son of Thunder