Plain fact of the matter is that 3Ed is great if you like roll-playing but hate role-playing.
My own group is split evenly down the middle. Those who like throwing dice - sadly including our interim DM - think it reaches the dizzy heights of mediocrity. The rest of us (roleplayers) think it sucks.
The DM's point of view (he's a Brit intelligence office who helped play-testing) is that the Yank market is being forced into a kind of table top battle game. And moving away from role-playing as far as possible.
The proof - why else have a skill- roll for everything? Why have a bluff role if the game is about role-playing? OK, you have to have roles for intangibles - the group generally guess you're hiding in shadows each time your feet stick out from under the curtains. But anything which can be role-played should be! Or did I completely miss the point of the game for the last 3 decades?
But let's take the game as it is and suppose that roll vs role isn't important.
So, do the rules work? Are they fair and consistent. The blindingly obvious answer is no. But IMHO, that was deliberate.
Let's see why.
There is a very obvious heirarchy of player power in races i.e. halflings and humans at the top, elves, gnomes and dwarves on the next tier, half-orcs on tier three and bottom of the pile poor old half-elves. (Why would you bother withone of those?) Halflings being the most ridiculously priviliged. Almost every weakness has a counterbalancing (or over balancing) plus for it.
Then let's look at character classes. Again a definite heirarchy: Thieves and Fighters as Skill and Feat Masters respectively on tier one (oh look, how convenient for hobbits and humans), clerics, wizards and sorcerors on tier 2, barbarians on tier three and then on tier four druids and rangers. Let's not forget tier 5. Once again monks get shafted big time. (What is it about monks in D&D - they ALWAYS get the sh*t end of the stick.)
Now the rules, we make them unnecessarily complicated and introduce Attacks of Opportunity. (By the way, I can speak knowledgeably about that: I have a 3rd Dan BlackBelt in one martial art and a Green Belt in Jiu-Jitsu. Attacks of opportunity don't exist in real life. Having fought multiple opponents often, you are too busy dealing to go "Oh, look I'll have a swack at the guy not bothering me as he runs past". Forget it. When you do that, your other opponents paste you good.)
So why design the game so poorly?
Again obvious. If you don't, how do you sell all the supplements which supply abilities/feats to make your lesser characters (anyone not a halfling thief or human fighter) actually playable.
Biggest drawback to 3Ed: combat takes too long. We have a group of 6 plus DM. Combat sessions take approx. 1 real hour per round of game combat. Mainly due to resolving all the attacks of opportunity. Since most combats are about 6-8 rounds, its about all my group get to do in a lot of sessions.
In 1st Edition, similar combats run at about 20 mins per round max.
Biggest Plus: Clerics with properly chosen domains can be wonderful game busters at appropriate times.
Quit my whining...no way! 1st Edition rocked because it had the final line in the DMG about not being hemmed in by rules lawyers and cutting the game to your own jib. 3Ed sucks because of the company marketing pressure to make sure gamers follow rules. Because that way you sell more 'official' product.
You're right, we will say "remember 3rd edition...glad it's gone, aren't you? At least 15th can't be any worse."
As for me, I'm off to find someone with a HackMaster campaign.
Remember, you do have a choice!
I found this recently while looking over some old threads about the 2E/3E edition wars. The whole thread has a few gems, but this one post seemed like the cream of the crap. My favorite points/insert drinking game moments are...
1. "I'm an internet ninja." You see, with my extensive knowledge of real-world combat, I can assure you that Attacks of Opportunity simply do not exist.
2. Fighters and Rogues are overpowered, while Druids are near the bottom of the scale (at least he got monks right).
3. 3E is incompatible with role-playing.
4. Selling more books is a bad thing, and somehow didn't happen with earlier editions.
5. Combat takes one hour per round, due to the effort required to resolve attacks of opportunity.
6. 1E was better because it encouraged the DM to ignore the rules. "Magical Tea Party FTW!"
