What is 3.0 & 3.5 missing that previous editions had?

[Quasqueton]

You're basically saying that you fudged and faked the monster stats, on the fly, in previous editions, but you can't do that now. Baloney. What, will the D&D3 police come and arrest you for fudging and faking, whereas the AD&D1/2 police were lenient?

And if you had the time to look up the chart for the saving throws in earlier editions, you have the time to look down at the monster's save bonus in this edition. Without even looking, or giving it more than a moment's thought: Orcs probably have something like Fort +3, Ref +0, and Will +0 saves. 5th-level orc is probably something like Fort +6, Ref +2, Will +0. I doubt I'm more than 1 point off. If you could fudge and fake in earlier editions, you can do it in this edition.

Your complaints on this matter are unfounded.

Bah.

Quasqueton

 

[Beard in the Sky]

3rd Edition was designed for a different generation than the generation posting on this board. I suspect people don't like 3rd edition as much as 1st edition for the same reason people don't like today's music as much as they liked the music when they were kids.

1E = Led Zeppelin (classic)

2E= Poison (even people who liked it didn't like it)

3E= Limp Bizkit (new and "edgy")

Everyone who likes Zep better (including myself) will swear it isn't just nostalgia, that they ARE better, but that argument doesn't work on teenagers who prefer Limp Bizkit. The problem is, I don't think the Limp Bizkit crowd is BUYING 3E, so you have this super-sleek, punked out armor and emphasis on power and coolness being marketed to people who are all to busy playing Diablo and EQ to bother with it and the people who ARE playing, just want to hear Stairway to Heaven again.

 

[buzzard]

3rd Edition was designed for a different generation than the generation posting on this board. I suspect people don't like 3rd edition as much as 1st edition for the same reason people don't like today's music as much as they liked the music when they were kids.

1E = Led Zeppelin (classic)

2E= Poison (even people who liked it didn't like it)

3E= Limp Bizkit (new and "edgy")

Everyone who likes Zep better (including myself) will swear it isn't just nostalgia, that they ARE better, but that argument doesn't work on teenagers who prefer Limp Bizkit. The problem is, I don't think the Limp Bizkit crowd is BUYING 3E, so you have this super-sleek, punked out armor and emphasis on power and coolness being marketed to people who are all to busy playing Diablo and EQ to bother with it and the people who ARE playing, just want to hear Stairway to Heaven again.

Well I prefer 3rd myself since it is simply a better rule set. However the amount of music which has come out in the past decade which I can stomach is severely limited. I'm an old fart in many areas, but I can recognize a beter rule set in a game.

This is not to say I didn't like 1st. I was really quite fond of it. I'd have to say that the 1st Ed. The thing I miss the most was Illusionists which were different. That has already been mentioned however.

buzzard

 

[jasamcarl]

You're basically saying that you fudged and faked the monster stats, on the fly, in previous editions, but you can't do that now. Baloney. What, will the D&D3 police come and arrest you for fudging and faking, whereas the AD&D1/2 police were lenient?

And if you had the time to look up the chart for the saving throws in earlier editions, you have the time to look down at the monster's save bonus in this edition. Without even looking, or giving it more than a moment's thought: Orcs probably have something like Fort +3, Ref +0, and Will +0 saves. 5th-level orc is probably something like Fort +6, Ref +2, Will +0. I doubt I'm more than 1 point off. If you could fudge and fake in earlier editions, you can do it in this edition.

Your complaints on this matter are unfounded.

Bah.

Quasqueton

Now, now. Don't be too rational; you might risk this thread loosing its 'soul'.

 

[Janx]

I stand corrected, the PH2e intro was written by David Cook, not Grubb. It was still worth reading and applicable to D&D3e.

It is also true that the 2e Player's Option series was not officially a 2.5e release, however many people consider it such, and for the sake of short-hand I used it. Meaning, your right because you choose to nit-pick, but you lose because it's not significant.

Next.

Personally, I liked 2e. I consider EGG's writing style to be boorish and hard to read. Yes, I have read his Gord novels (Greyhawk #1 and #2 in my private collection). 3e simply refined the rules, from my perspective, and reined in the Player's Option material.

I too was a bit overwhelmed by the extra feats and skills for monsters, that made it seem harder to adlib a monster. However, once you realize you were adlibbing then, you can adlib in 3e as well. Copy/paste works well for copying stat blocks of monsters in your adventures.

So to each his own. Ruleswise here's what I'm hearing as lacking that's not addressable by an attitude change:
Monk/paladin multi-class limitation
unique cleric class per religion in the campaign
book formatting/art preferences
PCs are more complex in 3e

I disagree on the last one, in the sense that when you apply all the extra rules from a given edition, PCs are pretty complex. Certainly, there's no reason you can't play D&D3e with your kids and skip Feats, Skills (except for the minimum you get for free with a class/race) and attacks of Opportunity. That pretty much brings you down to the level of the OD&D boxed set, which for an older than 13 gamer won't be enough and they'll want more. This is how you should be bringing in new kids anyway, strip the fancy rules, and add them back in as the player gets comfortable.

House rules and cool campaign books take care of the first two. The remaining one was addressed by me in an earlier post. You've got the SRD. The missing content (XP table and skill progression) is 1 page worth of material. make your own PH!

Janx

 

[Remathilis]

Hi. Thought I'd call you on a few facts and through a bit more fuel to the fire...

1e had:
static thief abilities (your level determined your scores) Actually level + Dex did. Later, armor equated in.
Then came the expansion, what was it called (one of the few I don't own)...
It added skills and THAC0 if I recall - Thac0 was hinted at in the Monster Manual. Skills came around in one of the Survival Guides, and again in Oriental Adventures.
different XP tables per class - Was in the 1e PH.
racial level limits - Was in the 1e PH
racial class limits - Was in the 1e PH
percentile strength (which was non-standard with other stats) - Was in the 1e PH.

2e had:
weapon proficiencies so you had to choose your favorite weapons - Was in the 1e PH
percentile strength (which was non-standard with other stats) - Was in the 1e PH
THAC0 which was WAAAAAAY better than 1e's silly armor class tables (mathematically the same) Sorta. Technically, the charts progessed at slightly different amounts than thac0 did, so thieves actually got worse at combat.

2.5e had:
sub-attributes (getting you a higher plus, at a price) - The price was rarely a penalty. "Oh! I'll be able to carry less stuff to have a +3/+7 to hit/dmg!"

3e had:
Prestige Classes (kits anyone?) - Prestige classes I don't think were intended as such, but they sure became it.
more complex combat using Feats (AoO for instance) - 2e Combat and Tactics (2.5) had AoOs, and the most complex combat you could imagine. Granted, it was optional rules...

One think I think 3e lacks is a feeling of vermissititude. Basic, OD&D, and 1e, dispite the occasional (and intentional) hodge-podging of myth, legend, fiction, and somewhat awkward science, it seemed more like it went together better than the core world 3e delivers. Dwarves, elves and halflings had a defined role. Wizards, fighters and clerics had a defined role. Monsters were bad, usually not good for much else than being monsters. High levels were magical because few campaigns ever saw them. These things led to a world that made PCs seem to be outsiders in a otherwise static and medieval world.

Now, adventurers are an accepted part of the society. The economy of gold and magic accomidates them. Monsters routinely have templates and class levels. Races have less defined roles due to open class selection. Customization of classes has also broken down the classic archtypes/stereotypes. The game focuses less on the world and more on the PC. DMs are encouraged to tinker more with the feel/ruleset, rather than patch the existing one. (Something I noticed due to the sheer volume of low-magic or alternate classes on these boards.)

All in all, we traded a simple, pre-made world with arbitary limitations and lots of already made depth and an established mindset for a world of few restrictions, lots of customization, and skeletal framework. The cost of D&Ds DM friendly flexibility was is mindset and soul.

 

[Beard in the Sky]

Surely this is a natural progression though? I mean, I loved those campaigns too but I remember people starting to ask for more complexity and realism too. Whereas there was at one time a pretty standard way to play the game, now I bet there are 25 or 30 different playing styles which naturally leads to the core books being a bit more "vague".

 

[kenjib]

Now, it seems like a lot of the artwork is solely done b/c they need a picture of what X looks like. I think D&D should spend more time hunting down great artists.

Your comment is very interesting. I would guess that the method for buying artwork is different now from how it worked in 1e. My theory is that 3e has closely managed art direction, with pictures ordered from artists to fill certain pre-planned spots in the book and illustrate scenes which are determined by art direction rather than the artist. 1e might have been more loosely purchased from artists, with the artists creating pictures they liked, and TSR looking over them and deciding what to do with them after the fact.

This is all speculation, but it would help to explain why all of the 3e pictures are meant to illustrate something in the adjascent text while many of the 1e pictures are there just for atmosphere/inspiration.

 

[Henry]

but shellshock stirs up more emotion. yet that was the wording of the day. WWI; ...combat fatigue...implies just that a result of battle...WWII; post traumatic stress disorder...vietnam...sure it may be more clinical and describe the malady better...but it reads like....

You forgot "Operational Exhaustion."

Shellshock - Battle Fatigue - Then Operational Exhaustion, then Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. Old George Carlin Skit.

 

[kamosa]

You're basically saying that you fudged and faked the monster stats, on the fly, in previous editions, but you can't do that now. Baloney. What, will the D&D3 police come and arrest you for fudging and faking, whereas the AD&D1/2 police were lenient?

Fake, no. What is fake in a game where everything is made up? Since 3E has endorced the concept of monster advancment, I like to think of it as visionary

Any way, I didn't do it on the fly. My point was making changes to 3 or 4 things was easier then the detail it goes into now where you have to detail out 15 or so things. If I want to fudge numbers, it's a heck of a lot easier to make up a number, but to be fair to the players I try not to do that.

And if you had the time to look up the chart for the saving throws in earlier editions, you have the time to look down at the monster's save bonus in this edition. Without even looking, or giving it more than a moment's thought: Orcs probably have something like Fort +3, Ref +0, and Will +0 saves. 5th-level orc is probably something like Fort +6, Ref +2, Will +0. I doubt I'm more than 1 point off. If you could fudge and fake in earlier editions, you can do it in this edition.

Your complaints on this matter are unfounded.

Bah.

Quasqueton

Quick give an ankeg, ettin and theiflings stats without looking. Look, I'm not saying it is a great burden that keeps me from creating a fun game. I'm just saying the other streamlined system was easier to GM, and as a GM, I appreciated that.