What is 3.0 & 3.5 missing that previous editions had?

[diaglo]

I think you are missing what he is saying. Earlier editions didn't have a CR system...

they did. it just wasn't the same as the 2000ed definition.

Dungeon Level 1-9 etc...for random monster encounters was a precursor to the CR system of 2000ed.

 

[kenjib]

Yeah, I agree. 3e is great if you change it so that it's a different game.

 

[Desdichado]

Yeah, I agree. 3e is great if you change it so that it's a different game.

Personally, I think it's pretty cool as is...

 

[kigmatzomat]

I tend to agree with Kamosa. 3e does require a more significant amount of time dedicated to stats and numbers. I still do a lot of number crunching on the fly, but all of the named enemies need personal attention in order to be fair to the players.

Named enemies *always* needed personal attention regardless of edition or system. A half dozen thugs/orcs/stormtroopers can be cloned from the CritterCodex but Hawthorne the Odiferous should have always been done in detail. Unless Hawthorne is just a generic orc with pretentions there for flavor or a distraction.

I do think computer programs can make things easier because they can manage the numbers better and more accurately than humans; however, a lot of people do not want to spend time on a computer to get the game sessions prepared.

I use software to manage PCs, not NPCs. Most NPC stats are done on a legal pad using 1-3 lines per entry. Pretty much the same way I did in 1e & 2e. My DM statblock looks like:

Name Init AC Size/Reach Attacks Damage SA Fort Ref Will HP

non-standard NPCs get the non-MM stats on subsequent lines along with treasure and SAs that don't fit in the space. Usually takes me 2-3 minutes per critter. I spend more time rolling treasure than making encounters.

The rules may be more straightforward in 3e, but there are a TON of them, which is a lot to remember while sitting at the table.

I never really played OD&D; my friends and I were too hyper to figure the rules out. I played 1E during the age of UA, OA, DSG, and WSG. I have no idea what D&D without excessive amounts of rules looks like. No, not entirely true. 2e was rules light, particularly rules I wanted to stop arguements between players but full of thethe rules I never used. Well, until Options and the the Kit books brought it up to 1e.

3e's mechanics are 99% contained within the PHB and DMG (I don't use Psionics). The splats really don't add new mechanics, just new permutations in the forms of feats and spells.

This all has the effect of distracting a GM from actually running the game and the story and I think that is what really sucks the life from the 3e game. GM data overload, less time to get the story elements to mesh well, and too many rules to master that can slow down the game.

This is basically complaining about an underprepared or inexperienced GM. My Rule:0 is that if someone can't find a rule in short order and it isn't a major component of the game, I come up with a simple stat+BAB/save/skill roll and we move on with the game.

 

[kamosa]

I think you are missing what he is saying. Earlier editions didn't have a CR system, nor did they specify how to adjudicate certain actions. THOSE ARE ALL OPTIONAL. As are the feats and pretty much everything you describe as complex. Now, I will agree this is all neccessary if you want to run a complete game. But that's the rub, isn't it, because earlier editions simply weren't complete games; balance meant nothing. You could easily throw all those details out the window and easily have the same or better experience as you had with 2e.

I would disagree that earlier editions didn't have a CR system. It wasn't coded the same way or called the same thing, but most GM's knew what threat level of an encounter was before they ran it. They knew when it was an easy encounter, they knew when they were about to break the party with a monster.

I don't think most of the information is optional. If a player casts a spell that requires a reflex save, the save number is not optional. Feats are a big part of 3E. If someone has improved grapple, you better know the stats for the monster. You can't play this game as a 2E game, nor would I want to.

In 2E a good GM codified the situation on the fly. That doesn't necessarily mean unfair to the players. A lot of situtation are much harsher on the players in 3E then they were when I ruled on them in 2E or 1E. This isn't a rant about fairness or balance. It isn't even about complexity. The save numbers aren't complex. The idea of monsters having stats isn't complex or even new.

It's more about the level of information the DM MUST have on hand to run a fair encounter and the amount of extra time it takes to create the game now.


Imagine running a mage or priest in combat as the GM now. Every spell can use a different save, so you have to have that information handy. 2e the players had a magic save that they kept handy. So instead of saying "roll a save take 15 or 8" and then moving on to the next issue of combat, I have to refer back to the notes to see which save Sniloc Snow Ball uses, then look at the mages sheet to get the DC of the spell, then tell them 15 or 8.

Say now the fighter now runs over and tries to grapple said mage and succeeds. Now the casting involves concentration checks, grapple checks, attacks of opportunity etc. This time adds up over the course of a long game and adds to the wear and tear on the GM. It makes creating the NPCs longer, it takes more time to prepare in general and the combats are far more complex from the GM's point of view.

 

[Numion]

The previous editions got nothing on 3.0E.

It's simple as that to me. True, I started with Basic, played a lot of 1e .. even bought 2e, but didn't play it. Only in year 2000 did I come back to D&D. Never been happier.

All the stupid D&Disms were gone, and a streamlined and playable game was created.

So I guess my answer is that 3E is missing all those stupid D&Disms - namely all the crappy restrictions and nonsense rules.

 

[Desdichado]

I would disagree that earlier editions didn't have a CR system. It wasn't coded the same way or called the same thing, but most GM's knew what threat level of an encounter was before they ran it. They knew when it was an easy encounter, they knew when they were about to break the party with a monster.

If by "system" what you really mean is, "read the monster's stats and description and make an informed decision as the DM on how much of a challenge this will be to your party" then I agree with you. However, since that same "system" still exists by simply ignoring the CR line on the stat block, I think it's fair to say that CR is a new tool without any previous analogue.

 

[jasamcarl]

I would disagree that earlier editions didn't have a CR system. It wasn't coded the same way or called the same thing, but most GM's knew what threat level of an encounter was before they ran it. They knew when it was an easy encounter, they knew when they were about to break the party with a monster.

I don't think most of the information is optional. If a player casts a spell that requires a reflex save, the save number is not optional. Feats are a big part of 3E. If someone has improved grapple, you better know the stats for the monster. You can't play this game as a 2E game, nor would I want to.

In 2E a good GM codified the situation on the fly. That doesn't necessarily mean unfair to the players. A lot of situtation are much harsher on the players in 3E then they were when I ruled on them in 2E or 1E. This isn't a rant about fairness or balance. It isn't even about complexity. The save numbers aren't complex. The idea of monsters having stats isn't complex or even new.

It's more about the level of information the DM MUST have on hand to run a fair encounter and the amount of extra time it takes to create the game now.


Imagine running a mage or priest in combat as the GM now. Every spell can use a different save, so you have to have that information handy. 2e the players had a magic save that they kept handy. So instead of saying "roll a save take 15 or 8" and then moving on to the next issue of combat, I have to refer back to the notes to see which save Sniloc Snow Ball uses, then look at the mages sheet to get the DC of the spell, then tell them 15 or 8.

Say now the fighter now runs over and tries to grapple said mage and succeeds. Now the casting involves concentration checks, grapple checks, attacks of opportunity etc. This time adds up over the course of a long game and adds to the wear and tear on the GM. It makes creating the NPCs longer, it takes more time to prepare in general and the combats are far more complex from the GM's point of view.

No, you have not given a reason why any of this is necessary versus the fudging that was required in 2e. Tell me again why you can't strip most of the detail and have the same basic game? In either a stripped 3e or core 2e, you'd have to fudge multiple aspects of the game. 2e combat was never balanced (making difficulty much more of a moot issue), because of the insane amount of adjudication necessary. You shouldn't call the need to adjudicate an improvised 3e game a vice while saying the same type of incomplete hack of a design is a virtue for 2e. Your trying to have your cake (balance, mechanical fidelity) and eat it too (but I have to deal with actual rules!!!!)

You can argue for a more minimalist design. But that isn't really prior editions. 1e/2e are more just incomplete.

 

[kamosa]

If by "system" what you really mean is, "read the monster's stats and description and make an informed decision as the DM on how much of a challenge this will be to your party" then I agree with you. However, since that same "system" still exists by simply ignoring the CR line on the stat block, I think it's fair to say that CR is a new tool without any previous analogue.

They used an XP system, which wasn't perfect, but did give a fairly good representation of the strength of the monsters.

I don't think CR is adding to the GM woes under 3E, I just wouldn't say it is some revolution to the game that makes 3E better either.

 

[jasamcarl]

Yeah, I agree. 3e is great if you change it so that it's a different game.

Of course, my point and others is that 1e/2e weren't full fledged games to begin with, so any comparison (especially positive ones in favor of earlier editions) are misplaced.