What is 3.0 & 3.5 missing that previous editions had?

[buzzard]

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 am not missing what he is saying, nor am I missing what you're saying. You both are missing the point. Some handwaving about how the earlier games weren't complete games is nonsense. I played previous editions and, you know, at the time had fun with the game. I didn't feel that anything was missing. I played in good stories and had good times. Just because 3rd has a better ruleset does not imply that previous editions did not have complete rulesets.

It is simply not possible to argue in a straigtforward way that 3rd Ed combat is as simple as the previous editions. You can remove plenty of 3rd edition to make it simpler, but then is it 3rd edition? Arguing that a stripped down version of 3rd edition is simpler is irrelevant.

buzzard

 

[Arnwyn]

"What is 3.0 & 3.5 missing that previous editions had?"

For me, 3.x is missing:
- better artwork (personal taste, of course)
- unique specialty priests
- as another poster noted, some of the "classical" tropes (like halflings/hobbits)
- restrictions used to better define the campaign world
- easier and faster preparation (not the same as ease of DMing). Earlier editions were far easier and faster to prepare for - but were a pain to actually run. Just the opposite, I've found 3.x to be extremely time-consuming to prepare for but very easy and relaxing to run. An optimal solution has not been met, unfortunately.
- Habitat and Ecology in monster listings. An absolute shame they were removed.
- DM support. 3.x has too much infor on characters (PC or NPC) and not enough to help run other aspects of the game (like, y'know - places, for example. Even campaign setting material, like FR, overly focuses on characters as opposed to geography). Draconomicon, Book of Challenges, and Stronghold Guide has helped alleviate this, but much more is needed.

 

[kamosa]

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.

First of all, you've said that 2E was unbalanced many times. I would agree with this on a character creation level. Not all characters were even remotely equal in 2E. However, in a combat by combat basis, the balance between the players and the monsters was never an issue. You have a tough GM in 2E, you still have problems in 3E. You have a fair GM in 2E, chances are that didn't change.

However, many changes that were made didn't affect balance and weren't because the previous system was an incomplete hack.

Take the saves for instance. There used to be 5 and now there is 3, so why is it more incomplete in 2E?. As I said in the previous post, take spell casting. In 2E, the burden was on the players to keep their save for spells handy. One number, worked great. In 3E, the GM must not only calculate the save number for each level of spell, but must also determine on a per spell basis which save to use.

Does the fact that there are now three possible saves for any spell add to the game? I don't think so, but it sure slows down play. I still end up adjudicating an "insane" amount. However, now instead of looking in people's eyes, my head is down and looking at my notes.

Instead of making a ruling and moving on, we look for a ruling somebody else made, with no evidence that they spent any more time on or thought then we would have.

 

[kenjib]

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.

It was a complete game and did the job well, even if 3e does the job better. More rules does not mean more complete. More rules is a design choice, not a design goal.

 

[Malk]

Well I'm a young new player who loves zeplin. I also dig limp bizkit for what its worth. I love third edition and see it as an improvement in almost all ways over 2e. I love the art, I find it on the whole more yes more realistic than in second edition. When I see second edition art i just think cheese...just cheese man. There were some exceptions...elmore being one of them. I also agree that 3e art could use more background work.

Also it is so very rare to find really good realistic depictions of armor...its to intricate for the most part to represent in a drawing, and sometimes when an artist actualy does present realistic armor it dosnt look right..the proportions look off. Besides if im playing in a game where everything is made up why not make the armor look "neat".

As for the lack of racial restrictions making the core world bland....there really isnt a core world. I dont know anyone, have never known anyone to play in the phb world...its not even an acurate representation of greyhawk.

 

[sledged]

- Releases afordable and spaced out far enough that everyone could own every product.

 

[kigmatzomat]

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.

I would. There's a difference between "xp -> 0" and "xp = 0". In 2e kill a rat, get 3xp regardless of level. 2,000th level and a rat is still 5xp; not worth much but worth *something*. In 3e a rat is worthless as an adversary by ~5th level.

Furthermore, CR provides a benchmark. It's still not absolutes because of tactics and exact situations, but a benchmark none the less.

CR=party level = moderately entertaining tussle.
CR<party level = easy.
CR> party level = hard
CR << party level = not worth noticing
CR >> party level = likely dead PCs

CR encourages better GMing. It can't enforce it, but it encourages it. Building encounters is still an art form, but it now has a bit of paint-by-numbers for people to start with and get functional faster.

 

[Mac Callum]

I think what Monte Cook has coined "the implied setting" of D&D has become more dilute.

The D&D-isms (like racial level limits) had to change from setting to setting, so that Dark Sun elves and dwarves were very different creatures than the ones of Ravenloft, Krynn or the Players Handbook. The 1e and 2e Player's Handbooks were really setting books. The 3rd Ed. has taken another route.

WotC made the decision that D&D would be a basic rule-set and that a lot of the "flavor & soul" would come from third-party d20 publishers. To do this the rules became very bland - not because the designers were bland people, but because they wanted the rules to fit as seemlessly as possible into other people's worlds.

To get this level of flexibility, the chameleon-like qualities of 3E also mean it has no character of its own.

The same can be seen in the artwork. There are no scenes in the Core Rules. Nothing to suggest an implied setting. Just characters posing for a portrait, whereas the old art captured them in a moment of their adventuring career - in a world somewhere.

I also think the idea of iconic characters was a bad one. Roleplaying is about making new characters, not being compared to some Platonic ideal. When I look through my 2E PHB (I have it right here) I see many different fighters. In 3E its just Redgar, over and over.

I also think that the rule set may be too complete. It's relatively simple: choose DC, ad mods, roll d20; but it covers everything. It is a perfectly simple, perfectly complete system of interlocking gears, in which all the paths lead inward to the d20 - the core of the machine; but not its soul. There are no idiosyncratic rule sets which say such-and-such works this way "just because." I never minded that, and in fact it often enhanced the feel of the "implied setting."

So what is 3E missing? What did 2E (and earlier) have?

• A stronger implied setting
• Scenic artwork
• Practical/ believable arms and armor
• Multiple examples of class/race combos - not Icons

I'm not downplaying what 3E has over earlier editions - it has a lot - but this is what it's missing, in my eyes.

The man who says he has the answer to all things
is either very wise or very dumb
and either way, he has put a knife in the heart or wonder

 

[rounser]

I think what Monte Cook has coined "the implied setting" of D&D has become more dilute.

Hmmm....I think I recall inventing that term to refer to a point I was trying to make during a discussion with jasamcarl on these boards, actually...and I think that predated Mr Cook's use of it.

 

[kigmatzomat]

However, in a combat by combat basis, the balance between the players and the monsters was never an issue. You have a tough GM in 2E, you still have problems in 3E. You have a fair GM in 2E, chances are that didn't change.

The heck it wasn't. I tore my hair out constantly in 2e trying to guess at balanced encounters. My choices were a) only run things I've run before, b) fudge constantly so that the BBEG lasts long enough or the minor guards don't off the PCs, c) prepare for my game to be completely derailed because I couldn't tell how the creature's special abilities would really pan out.

I got good at it after time, but it was a nightmarish amount of mental work to evaluate the various combat possibilities. 3E I need to review the encounters but I don't have to sweat blood.

Maybe it's not evident to people with normal sized groups, but I run for groups of 7-12 players. 3E is *way* less work.

Take the saves for instance. There used to be 5 and now there is 3, so why is it more incomplete in 2E?. As I said in the previous post, take spell casting. In 2E, the burden was on the players to keep their save for spells handy. One number, worked great. In 3E, the GM must not only calculate the save number for each level of spell, but must also determine on a per spell basis which save to use.

Sorry, I'd rather be concerned about the effect than the source. I always hated situations like "What's the save vs Poison when it comes from a wand?"

This is a core design decision or more accurately the result of two systemwide decisions. "Stats affect everything" combined with "higher level spells are harder to resist than lesser spells" Since stats don't directly impact the damage or spell affects, it has to impact the saves.