Who here dislikes 3rd ed D&D?

[Ilya]

I do not hate 3rd ed, but I dislike it. First, it is too complicated (a common complaint), but more importantly, it is too modularized. Pretty much any class ability can be fitted to any creature; there is no fundamental difference between gnoll wizard/ranger, wererat wizard/ranger, celestial wizard/ranger and beholder wizard/ranger. Fire/cold/lightning/sonic damage/resistances had become completely interchangeable. 1st and 2nd editions were full of unique abilities -- for example, roar of androsphynx was nothing quite like what any other creature could do, as was chill gaze of some archdevils. I understand that the point of 3rd ed was (in part) precisely to remove such oddities and to bring them to a "common denominator", but to me they were always a major attraction. Does anyone else feel the same way?

When I run a game, my house rules go more or less like this:

1. Start with AD&D 1 - including Unearthed Arcana and Dungeoneer's Survival Guide.

2. Rangers, specialist wizards, dragons and a few spells are taken from AD&D 2.

3. No level limits for demi-humans -- although I never ran a campaign high enough for that to matter much.

4. Armor Class goes from 10 up, which I think is simply THE best idea of AD&D 3.

5. I like some prestige classes, but modify them to fit into AD&D 1. Thief-acrobat was the archetypal prestige class, and those which I allow follow similar rules.

[Tengu]

Most new RPGs are heading either towards modularising, or very simple rules.

I dislike all editions of DND, though I must say that they got better over time - if the trend continues, 4th ed. might be actually a decent game in my eyes.

[AslanCross]

Although I haven't played a tabletop version of 2E, I was able to play a CRPG version of it: Baldur's Gate II. BG2's manual included a sizable amount of actual D&D rules, so I went through it and understood it well enough. I enjoyed the game as well, but I'm glad the computer did all of the crunching for me. When I looked at 3.5, I found the whole thing so much better than 2E, which I found to be quite cumbersome. I actually found 3E simpler. About the most complicated parts of 3E are probably the special attacks such as trip, grapple and disarm. Everything else seems quite straightforward to me compared to "Negative AC = better" and "Save vs. Staff/Rod/Wand".

[Serenity]

Technically, the BG series is more like 2.5e, as it mixes in a number of 3.0 elements.

[Matthew]

I wouldn't say I dislike 3e, but I wouldn't say I like it either. For what it is, it's good; for what it isn't, it's bad. If I were to make a list of things I don't like, it would be very long, but full of minor preferential items. The list of things I do like would be rather shorter and largely held in common with previous editions.

Do not judge 2e by Baldur's Gate. Baldur's Gate is an excellent CRPG, but it is not the equivalent of playing AD&D.

[Lord_Butters_I]

I houserule 3.5 D&D so much that a casual observer probibly couldn't identify it as such.

[Skyserpent]

I'm posting for most of my friends who find the rules chafing and damaging to the RP context of the Game.

I personally find the edition alright if it's not taken too seriously as a hard-and-fast rule-set that is integral to the fun of the game. I mean, it's fun stuff, it's a good baseline, and it's limiting factors make it fun to try and think inside the box. But pretty much all of my friends prefer White-Wolf. Nonetheless, We still have our fun with classic Dungeon Crawling excitement.

[Kompera]

Does the question also consider 3.5?

I like D&D 3.5. Having played the game across the years in many different formats, 3.5 is the best for:

1) Allowing the player to customize their character to suit their own vision of what they'd like to play;

2) Eliminating some poorly thought out rules;
- EX: AD&D: Two Fighters. One rolls a 17 STR and therefore gets a +10% EXP bonus. The other rolls a 14 STR and thus does not. So not only is the player whose character has the lower STR going to be overshadowed during play, on average, by the player whose character has the higher STR, but over time that distance will widen as the lower STR character falls behind in level.


It's poor for being too easily min/maxed. This comes with nearly any customization system, but it can be reduced through more careful attention to how rules can be used, as opposed to how the game designers think they'll be used.

Other than that, it's essentially the same game. The GM needs to craft their own game setting, and allow or disallow portions of the rules based on how things fit into that setting. Same as it ever was.

[AstralFire]

I love 3ed. Modularity is awesome. I can understand the complaint that 3ed went a little too far with it (which is why I'm glad that 4ed allows you to progress in your race at the same time as your class) but keeping core abilities of general classes available to the 'public' so to speak has been great for me in building unique and interesting NPCs as a DM, as well as PCs as a player. Don't understand people who complain that the rules are 'chafing', either. The rules are only really restrictive in combat, which is the only time they *need* to be. Everything else comes down to how clever the player and the character are with their roleplay.

[Matthew]

Why do they *need* to be?

[Skjaldbakka]

You play 2nd ed., but think 3rd is too complicated? A comment about pots and kettles would seem appropriate here.

[AstralFire]

Why do they *need* to be?

Because combat is directly a matter of life and death, so having a well-scripted system of adjudication is greatly appreciated.

With the rest of the system, the existence of the DM Fiat Circumstance bonus solves almost anything that doesn't match up between RP and game 'reality'. Action Points and careful use of said fiat really cover most issues in combat as well. Particularly by this point in third edition, I never feel limited as a player or as a DM by the system, and it's not for lack of creativity (as would be easy to see if you ever went through my files of homebrew creations.)

[Icewalker]

I've played much, much more 1st edition than 3rd edition, and I think I disagree. A well run game overrides how good the system is though, and the 1st edition DM has been running games for something like 10 years as his job, so he's pretty good

The biggest problem is somewhat fixable, which is that all the 1st edition books are really badly written. Vagueness, contradictions, missing pieces. There is a smaller variety of options in just about every field, such as weapons, magic items, potions, spells, etc (which does make things simpler, but it really isn't that hard in 3rd edition.) Supplemental books give players a lot more choices. To reduce confusion one can limit the game to core only, but for more experienced players a wider array of interesting ideas are available.

Generalizing abilities is a bit of a downside, as a big variety of interesting abilities is always a good thing. I'd say one issue with that though is that the 1st edition's bad writing gets in the way: Because the abilities are unique there is little to no precedence, and the wording has problems often. I think a middle ground is preferable here: unique but clearly worded abilities, possibly even emulating common abilities but with changes.

I question your point about how class abilities can move between creatures. Isn't that exactly the same in 1st edition? Or do you mean in 1st edition monsters can't have character classes? Because IMO that is one of the big improvements moving into 3rd: it allows for more interesting characters.

A couple of more minor notes I think were improvements between 1st and 3rd:

• The 10+ AC. It just makes so much more sense, as you acknowledged
• Standardized exp per level. Less things to look up on tables
• Saves done by bonus and DC instead of...1st edition's wierd way of doing it, with individual saves
• Better organized and simpler ability scores. The bonuses make + to dmg and the like so much easier
• A little nitpicky: easier to navigate character sheets

Basically, my preference is to run a 3rd edition game, but homebrew just about all my own monsters, which end up quite unique.

(note: when I say '3rd edition' I mean 3.5, although I really don't know where the major differences are.)

[AstralFire]

I question your point about how class abilities can move between creatures. Isn't that exactly the same in 1st edition? Or do you mean in 1st edition monsters can't have character classes? Because IMO that is one of the big improvements moving into 3rd: it allows for more interesting characters.

That as well as the generality of feats and skill points. Those are quite nice.

Basically, my preference is to run a 3rd edition game, but homebrew just about all my own monsters, which end up quite unique.

I almost never run monsters, myself - the Monster Manuals are incredibly underused by me, as I typically get more use out of taking a PC-able race and building it up with class levels (yay modularity) often multiclass or PrCed. I get by usually with the SRD and the incidental monster listings in supplements like Sharn and ECS.

[Matthew]

You play 2nd ed., but think 3rd is too complicated? A comment about pots and kettles would seem appropriate here.

Depends how many Optional rules are in play.

Because combat is directly a matter of life and death, so having a well-scripted system of adjudication is greatly appreciated.

With the rest of the system, the existence of the DM Fiat Circumstance bonus solves almost anything that doesn't match up between RP and game 'reality'. Action Points and careful use of said fiat really cover most issues in combat as well. Particularly by this point in third edition, I never feel limited as a player or as a DM by the system, and it's not for lack of creativity (as would be easy to see if you ever went through my files of homebrew creations.)

A well defined system doesn't have to be complicated and combat in 3e is as vulnerable to DM fiat as every other aspect. Circumstance Modifiers are as valid in combat as out.

[AstralFire]

A well defined system doesn't have to be complicated and combat in 3e is as vulnerable to DM fiat as every other aspect. Circumstance Modifiers are as valid in combat as out.

My group of six has two newbies and we've never had any problems with them understanding combat. I don't see what's terribly complicated about it, aside from the fact that Pencil and Paper games do require a higher level of thought at all levels of play than a video game. That's true of any P&P system. Most of the most complicated rules only get invoked on a regular basis by people who are already familiar with them and are building for a particular style (the wrestler, the tripper, etc.) I picked up and played D&D for the first time after a 50 minute bus ride with the PHB in my backpack, and I'm not particularly bright.

All aspects of any game are equally vulnerable to Game Master fiat, but the open-endedness of the skill system makes it considerably more prone to fiat than a combat system where everything's laid out neatly for you.

[Skjaldbakka]

Depends how many Optional rules are in play

No, I was talking about the basic system. It is easier to explain [roll a d20 and X, here is how you get X, you are trying to hit a total of Y] than it is to explain [roll a d20, sometimes you add X, sometimes you subtract Y, sometimes you are trying to roll under Z, sometimes above Z].

[Goff]

Ahem... This this more or less sums up my position on the constant 'my edition is better' arguments.

[Doresain]

i was raised on 3e...im sorry, but i could never bad mouth it :(

[Matthew]

My group of six has two newbies and we've never had any problems with them understanding combat. I don't see what's terribly complicated about it, aside from the fact that Pencil and Paper games do require a higher level of thought at all levels of play than a video game. That's true of any P&P system. Most of the most complicated rules only get invoked on a regular basis by people who are already familiar with them and are building for a particular style (the wrestler, the tripper, etc.) I picked up and played D&D for the first time after a 50 minute bus ride with the PHB in my backpack, and I'm not particularly bright.

All aspects of any game are equally vulnerable to Game Master fiat, but the open-endedness of the skill system makes it considerably more prone to fiat than a combat system where everything's laid out neatly for you.

Yeah, complicated wasn't what I meant (I mixed up my discussion with Skjaldbakka), I meant to say 'chafing' or 'restrictive'. On the other hand, 3e combat is just as or more complicated as previous edition (with some glaring exceptions, such as 1e Unarmed Combat), though it is more clearly laid out.

i.e. a well defined combat system doesn't have to be 'chafing' or 'restrictive'. For what it's worth, I don't think the 3e combat system is chafing or restrictive, which is why I posed the question. The adjudicating actions not covered section on p. 25 of the DMG is what I had in mind.

No, I was talking about the basic system. It is easier to explain [roll a d20 and X, here is how you get X, you are trying to hit a total of Y] than it is to explain [roll a d20, sometimes you add X, sometimes you subtract Y, sometimes you are trying to roll under Z, sometimes above Z].

The degree of difficulty between the two is very small. If you really need to explain it simply you can do it just as easily by explaining that every action has a percentage chance of success.

[Skjaldbakka]

i was raised on 3e...im sorry, but i could never bad mouth it :(

wow, raised on 3rd. You're making me feel old. I started on 1st Ed (back in 1st grade).

The degree of difficulty between the two is very small. If you really need to explain it you can do it just as easily by explaining that every action has a percentage chance of success.

Hense my original statement. Claiming that 3rd is more complex than 2nd is patently false. So is the reverse. They are both somewhat complex.

[Knight_Of_Twilight]

I'm confused why there would people here who didn't like D&D at all...

I like all the editions, honestly, each has their charm to me. I've really only played 2nd and 3.5 extensivly though.

[Doresain]

im only 19...i started playing back in like 8th grade...

[AstralFire]

If you'll allow me to turn the tables on you a bit, what's unnecessarily restrictive about 3e's combat system? 'bout the only thing that doesn't make sense to me is the multiturn jump rules.

Yeah, Doresain, I'm 21 - I was raised on 3e as well. My only encounters with 2e have been with a DM who was obsessed with houseruling 3e into the ground to be more like it until none of us understood what was going on anymore so we all quit and he spontaneously exploded.

[Matthew]

Hense my original statement. Claiming that 3rd is more complex than 2nd is patently false. So is the reverse. They are both somewhat complex.

I still wouldn't agree with that, though. As a whole and without any Optional Rules, 2e was simpler than 3e (bearing in mind that Paladins and many, many other things were optional).

If you'll allow me to turn the tables on you a bit, what's unnecessarily restrictive about 3e's combat system? 'bout the only thing that doesn't make sense to me is the multiturn jump rules.

That's what I was getting at, it's only as restrictive as the DM wants it to be. i.e. the combat system doesn't *need* to be restrictive at all.

Yeah, Doresain, I'm 21 - I was raised on 3e as well. My only encounters with 2e have been with a DM who was obsessed with houseruling 3e into the ground to be more like it until none of us understood what was going on anymore so we all quit and he spontaneously exploded.

Heh, behind every '2e sucks' story lurks a bad DM. That is one thing 3e seems great at, taking the blame for a bad experience from the DM.

[SpiderKoopa]

Wow, I'm 19 and was raised on 2E (I also feel late, I started my junior year of highschool).

The DM was great though, and so we had a good time. I didn't even know of any 3.x until my senior year. At first I had problems adjusting to the new system (bad DMs mostly) but after a while it became second nature (I still need help converting characters every once in a while, but I'm getting there).

I think I'll just stand with my argument in the "3.x vs 2E" thread, it's all about the dungeon master and his/her techniques.

[Matthew]

Whilst that is definitely true, there's the possibility that the systems may be compared assuming DMs of equal skill. I think this is where just plain old preference comes into play. The preperation involved in writing my own customised and comprehensive material for 3e is way higher than for AD&D. On the other hand, I could reasonably easily drop a lot of what makes it so time consuming.

[JadedDM]

Does the question also consider 3.5?

Are they really that different? I've always classified 3.0 and 3.5 as both "3rd Edition" since I always took 3.5 to just be a mild revision of 3.0 (otherwise, they would have called it 4E, wouldn't they have?)

But to stay on topic, no, I don't like 3E. Never did. That's why I continue to stick with 2E.

[AstralFire]

Heh, behind every '2e sucks' story lurks a bad DM. That is one thing 3e seems great at, taking the blame for a bad experience from the DM.

Where do you get that out of my story? I've never played 2E and I've never badmouthed it.

[Knight_Of_Twilight]

Heh, behind every '2e sucks' story lurks a bad DM. That is one thing 3e seems great at, taking the blame for a bad experience from the DM.

I think thats behind every "D&D ___ Edition" sucks story! :)

All the editions really facilitate fun and adventure, if you like that sort of fantasy. Any legitimate complaints really come from people who should probably be playing another game.

Edit: This isn't me trying to sound snarky- there are plenty of awesome games that aren't D&D, that appeal to different kinds of players. Just like Movies or books, everyone needs something different.