Fundamentally d20 and 3E/3.5 have sound game mechanics. The revamped armor class, ability scores, and combat system are all easier to use and more linear than previous editions. Feats and class adjustments (multi/dual classing) however essentially ruin the improvements for me. I've been the DM of my group since tearing the shrink off my first boxed set. In the 2 decades at the occupation I've found the most fundamental aspect of both a good rpg and a good campaign is balance. Inevitably, pcs are drawn from a fairly wide group of players with different role-playing desires. Finding a spot for most without it being at another's expense is key. This also goes for the DM/PC interaction.

When I say DM/PC interaction I don't mean DM vs. PCs exactly but how do you challenge the pcs within the greater game mechanics while still maintaining game balance? A group of min/maxing players will force a dm to use stronger and stronger monsters earlier which in turn are worth more xp. Eventually you reach a sort of rpg arms race to make games competitive between your ultimately too strong pcs. What usually results is mutually assisted destruction. Game balance was probably the best with 1E but its continued evolution was a jumble of new rules particularly Unearthed Arcana which tipped the scales toward the pcs. 2E was still in favor of pcs but organized everything in a much better fashion while optioning most of the really unbalancing rules.

3E could've reset game balance while improving the overall mechanics in a blissful marriage but instead the scales were broken with feats and new class rules. As I mentioned above I spent about 10 years DMing in 2E and had the greatest games (I also love the ole grey box and FR sups...really superior to the WoG 83 box in my opinion.) After a few months of intensive learning and playtesting 3E my friends and I started a FR campaign. It started well but once the core of the group reached 7th level the aforementioned arms race began and eventually ended with the death of most of party, the death of the avatar of Sebek, and an ancient blue dragon. Without going into detail a group of pcs managed to defeat creature far beyond the challenge rating. Ultimately if game balance was restored with 3E it would probably be far and away the best edition but I feel it was driven even further from the center. Of course I still use the 3E combat system...

Cattledog wrote:Fundamentally d20 and 3E/3.5 have sound game mechanics. The revamped armor class, ability scores, and combat system are all easier to use and more linear than previous editions. Feats and class adjustments (multi/dual classing) however essentially ruin the improvements for me. I've been the DM of my group since tearing the shrink off my first boxed set. In the 2 decades at the occupation I've found the most fundamental aspect of both a good rpg and a good campaign is balance. Inevitably, pcs are drawn from a fairly wide group of players with different role-playing desires. Finding a spot for most without it being at another's expense is key. This also goes for the DM/PC interaction.

When I say DM/PC interaction I don't mean DM vs. PCs exactly but how do you challenge the pcs within the greater game mechanics while still maintaining game balance? A group of min/maxing players will force a dm to use stronger and stronger monsters earlier which in turn are worth more xp. Eventually you reach a sort of rpg arms race to make games competitive between your ultimately too strong pcs. What usually results is mutually assisted destruction. Game balance was probably the best with 1E but its continued evolution was a jumble of new rules particularly Unearthed Arcana which tipped the scales toward the pcs. 2E was still in favor of pcs but organized everything in a much better fashion while optioning most of the really unbalancing rules.

3E could've reset game balance while improving the overall mechanics in a blissful marriage but instead the scales were broken with feats and new class rules. As I mentioned above I spent about 10 years DMing in 2E and had the greatest games (I also love the ole grey box and FR sups...really superior to the WoG 83 box in my opinion.) After a few months of intensive learning and playtesting 3E my friends and I started a FR campaign. It started well but once the core of the group reached 7th level the aforementioned arms race began and eventually ended with the death of most of party, the death of the avatar of Sebek, and an ancient blue dragon. Without going into detail a group of pcs managed to defeat creature far beyond the challenge rating. Ultimately if game balance was restored with 3E it would probably be far and away the best edition but I feel it was driven even further from the center. Of course I still use the 3E combat system...

I think that game balance is better in 3rd edition...with the exception of the bard class...and the rogue against anything that cannot be sneak attacked.

The 3rd edition rules do call for the players and DM to share the rules interpretation and enforcement duties.  There are too many variables for the DM to control and he has to rely more upon the players.  It also takes more preparation.

Cattledog wrote:When I say DM/PC interaction I don't mean DM vs. PCs exactly but how do you challenge the pcs within the greater game mechanics while still maintaining game balance? A group of min/maxing players will force a dm to use stronger and stronger monsters earlier which in turn are worth more xp. Eventually you reach a sort of rpg arms race to make games competitive between your ultimately too strong pcs. What usually results is mutually assisted destruction.

In that case, I would argue that the DM isn't doing a very good job.  The DM should be finding different ways to challenge the PCs (e.g. smarter monsters, not stronger).

The monsters have the same feats...although some work better for the PC's.

Game balance is different in 3rd edition.  It holds up until about 12th level...as opposed to the sharp break at 7th level in 1st edition that was created by Unearthed Arcana.

Cattledog wrote:I challenged the pcs in every way possible but the core of D&D especially 3E given feats is combat. Besides my players have years of experience and are really too smart for their own good. You should probably play one of my adventures before you call me a bad DM.

That certainly wasn't my intent.  I apologize.

I've kind of soured on 3.x having played and DM'd it the past few years.  Things I like?  Some of the Feats from OGL sources like "Unarmored Defensive Proficiency" which allows Characters to have a better AC without armor and OGL derivative games such as Castles & Crusades (OGL rules adapted to AD&D 1E classes and flavor.)  As a matter of fact I'm going to have the pleasure of DMing BeyondTheBreach in a new C&C campaign real soon!

Gotta admit that it does replicate some of the original pulp/low fantasy of characters like Conan.  You hardly ever see him (in the cover art works) wearing more than just a hide loin cloth for armor.  So how is he just harder to hit?  Bad die rolls, gobs more HPs?  Damn hard to justify in the older rules sets as an 18 Dex...   Don't get me wrong, I am NOT a 3.x defender by any stretch....though the 3.x defenders say it is not "video game like" I beg to differ and have pissed some off due my opinon in that manner...

MShipley88 wrote:Why is one PC harder to hit even though he's not wearing armor?

Displacer beast gene.  Somewhere waaay up in the family tree...