Standardized mechanic, based on a single additive roll.  Unified XP system.  Moddability.

Pretty much all I can think of.

It wasnt 4th Edition.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;885836Standardized mechanic, based on a single additive roll.

I tend to agree that this is the beginning and end of what 3E did right. Everything else, even if it started out good, eventually devolved into muck, but standardizing the mechanic? Gold.

3e drew the min/max dickheads which was great for me at cons because I was left with people who really enjoyed OD&D.

As for the system, I must give kudos for Ascending AC. WTF didn't we think of that sooner? I personally feel like an idiot for not inventing it in 1983.

I can't give kudos for the Unified XP chart because Tunnels & Trolls invented that circa 1976.

Some really good creative shit came out of the D20 / OGL boom.

Personally, I think ascending AC is a null either way, uniform resolution mechanic is a minor negative, and the same XP for all classes is a huge negative.

The had some nice art.

Quote from: tenbones;885873The had some nice art.

If you like every monster in the monster manual looking like the poster child for anorexics-r-us. Some of the most gawd-awefull art in the MM.

Quote from: Spinachcat;885854As for the system, I must give kudos for Ascending AC. WTF didn't we think of that sooner? I personally feel like an idiot for not inventing it in 1983.

It was invented at least several years before that. The first professional publication I saw of such a system for D&D was in the second part of the "Vardy Combat System" article published in Different Worlds #7 (April/May 1980), written by John Sapienza -- see page 22.

I skipped that era.

I like ascending AC and "simple" weapons.

Quote from: RandallS;885911It was invented at least several years before that. The first professional publication I saw of such a system for D&D was in the second part of the "Vardy Combat System" article published in Different Worlds #7 (April/May 1980), written by John Sapienza -- see page 22.

Descending AC is among the sacredest of sacred cows: pointless, non-intuitive, confusing to newcomers, abandoned by practically every other system of similar design long before D&D did, yet still vigorously defended by otherwise pragmatic people.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;885915Descending AC is among the sacredest of sacred cows: pointless, non-intuitive, confusing to newcomers, abandoned by practically every other system of similar design long before D&D did, yet still vigorously defended by otherwise pragmatic people.

As far as I can tell, it's a matter of taste. Mathematically, all the various D&D-variant combat system based on rolling a D20 work out about the same. The main exception is the combat system from 1e with its repeated 20s in the table. While a lot of people can come up with excellent reasons to support their favorite variant as the "One Best Way", I can't really see any one variant as objectively so much better than another that it is obvious "best".

Any step towards Rolemaster is a good thing?

I think 3e was better thought out than 2e and avoided many of the pitfalls of just dropping the parts of the game people didn't use because they didn't understand them.  That said, I think the entire weapon verses armor table thing was too integral to AD&D's weapon stats and carrying them forward without it was the biggest fault in second edition, well that and elves wielding longbows with sheaf arrows for +1 to hit, 2d4 damage, 2 shots, rate of fire 2.

But we were talking about 3e so deliberate and thoughtful design over regurgitation without reflection.  I'm not a big 3e fan, I already have Rolemaster and GURPS if I want them and D&D being more like them isn't really a plus from where I sit.

Oh and THAC0 is design neutral and charts are fine by me.

Quote from: RandallS;885911It was invented at least several years before that. The first professional publication I saw of such a system for D&D was in the second part of the "Vardy Combat System" article published in Different Worlds #7 (April/May 1980), written by John Sapienza -- see page 22.

  2nd Edition almost adopted ascending AC, but backed off for fear of invalidating their extensive library of backstock. I think they somewhat underestimated gamers' ability to adapt, but I can see why they'd choose the safer route.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;8859262nd Edition almost adopted ascending AC, but backed off for fear of invalidating their extensive library of backstock. I think they somewhat underestimated gamers' ability to adapt, but I can see why they'd choose the safer route.

Second edition is probably the most conservative edition ever published. They played with peripheral stuff, but completely shied away from changing anything that was part of the core. Look at saves, for instance -- they didn't just keep the same five categories, they even kept the exact same numbers. But it was a natural first step; just consolidating the mess that was 1e was a major undertaking.

Third edition in a lot of ways is the 2nd edition they shied away from. They made a lot of small changes that each, individually, made sense and seemed to be natural outgrowth of 2e. But when all those changes were taken in toto, what emerged was a game that plays nothing like earlier editions. That's why 3e worked so well initially, because people played it like 2e. But it's also why it started to break down, when people started to drop their old preconceptions and treat it as a game in itself. Because that's when things like the build mentality, caster supremacy, save or dies over blasting, the three Hs, overly complex monsters and NPCs, and so on became growing problems.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;885915Descending AC is among the sacredest of sacred cows: pointless, non-intuitive, confusing to newcomers, abandoned by practically every other system of similar design long before D&D did, yet still vigorously defended by otherwise pragmatic people.

Meh.  When you use a lookup chart it really doesn't matter.  And I still use a hit chart rather than a formula to this very day.  Graphical information is easier for me to use.  I never did like THACO.

In fact, when I was playing a lot of CHAMPIONS I made myself a to hit chart for OCV -10 to OCV +10 versus DCV -10 to DCV +10 because I found it easier to use.