Why is 3e so shit?

Why is 3e so shit?

It's not - all things considered it's the best edition to run a serious, lengthy campaign.


It has its merits, but it's rather bogged down by balance issues, HP bloat, and caster supremacy.

WotC wanted to throw out years of rules and settings, rehashed the most generic of them and tied all of the classes to the same leveling scale while also instituting mandatory feats and magic item grabs just to try and keep up with scaling of the enemies. At the same time they introduced large numbers of trap options, exploded the versatility of casters over non-casters, and much, much more.

they did have good art, good book design.
i dont mind playing 3e / pathfinder, but, Dm'ing during all that was hellish for me.

it was a battle of quality vs quantity... and watching it loss every day to the wrong side

>what is AD&D?

Exponential casters.
CCG-like character building.


>It's old, therefore it's shit.

I'm just baiting. AD&D is good, I just prefer 3e for lengthy and serious campaigns.

In what respect?

Exalted 3e is literally the best edition yet and an amazing system you cuck

>it's old, therefore it can't be shit.

Surely you jest. The level range where the game doesn't behave like shit is like 3-6 or so, and Martials can EITHER do their job OR move, and all special attack options (disarm, trip, etc.) are trap options, with or without feat.

That's not what anyone here said.

>A game is neither shit nor good until one plays it.

AD&D is shit, and part of the reason is because it's old.

I was trying to think of other games that had a third edition to make that joke about but you beat me to it.

But that's wrong, I'm not sure why being old is even a reason to be shit.

Some of its design choices used to be prevalent and popular around the days it was made in, simply because people didn't know any better at the time. It doesn't hold up nowadays. Therefore, some of its problems that we perceive today are a result of age.

Can you give any examples?