basic differences in rules per edition

[Stormonu]

1E/2E
Initiative is rerolled each round

3E/4E
Intiative is set at the start of ocmbat and goes round-robin from there


This had a huge impact on spellcasting in 1E/2E

 

[Stormonu]

Bwah?

The class list for 2E at launch was Fighter, Paladin, Ranger, Mage, Illusionist, Cleric, Druid, Thief, and Bard.

The only 1E PHB classes that didn't make the cut were Assassin and Monk.

Illusionist, Evoker, Necromancer, Diviner, Enchanter, Transmuter, Conjurer, Abjurer actually for the wizard subclasses

and The UA classes got the axe as well (barbarian, cavalier, thief-acrobat)

 

[shadzar]

D&D: Law and Chaos alignments
You could move along the line to either extreme or be inbetween them.
1 dimensional alignment

AD&D, 3.x: Law/Chaos and Good/Evil grid
You could move along each of the lines to either extreme or be inbetween them as they cross each other.
2 dimensional alignments

You actually played your alignment or should in some form as it is a part of your character.

4th: Good/Evil, Lawful Good/Chaotic Evil, Unaligned
Uh? I wouldn't even know how to described this except chaos and it isn't even required anymore.

Alignment is a tool for a few mechanics to let you select a few options, then you just ignore it unless a mechanic needs it for some reason. It only changes if for some reason a player wants to change it.

 

[Bluenose]

A few things I haven't noticed others mention:

2e: The 1gp = 1xp link is broken. I suspect that previously most xp came from treasure, with 2e treasure is a reward of a different sort.
Most monsters got significantly increased hit points.
Non-weapon proficiences move into the core rules.
Magic-User became Mage, and Illusionist became a sub-class along with all the other specialists.


3e: Saving throws came to be made relative to the attack, rather than as absolutes. Yes, there were spells in 1e/2e that gave penalties to saves, but most didn't.
Hit points escalate dramatically for both PCs and NPCs/monsters. In 1e/2e there came a point at which you didn't get more hit dice, instead getting fixed hit points each level. High constitution scores became much more valuable.
Iterative attacks for everyone, not just warrior sub-classes.

 

[Mercurius]

Just a point of clarification, the Bard was not taken out of 4E, it was just delayed to Player's Handbook 2, which came out nine months after the core rule books.

 

[Mercurius]

1e to 2e: Fiction first predominates. The rules exist to model the fiction, and should not be applied where they fail to do so.

3e: The balancing point, as it were. Attempt to be neither fiction first or rules first, as rules were intended to cover all aspects of the fiction adequately.

4e: Rules first. The rules are intended to take precendence over the fiction, with the fiction being adapted to the rules.

NOTE: 1e can be played "rules first" and 4e can be played "fiction first", but it is far, far easier to do it the other way around.

Hmm...I'm going to have to think about this one. Part of what happened, as I see, is that the rules system--especially with the jump to 3E and the d20 core mechanic--became more robust and able to model fiction, so "on the fly" rulings were less necessary and the temptation to "rule-ify" everything became greater. Without the core mechanic, AD&D had more of a "heapism" approach where new rules were added on and everything was, in a sense, optional partially because it didn't have that streamlined core.

I think there is an argument that 4E turned the corner, that 3.5 was the furthest extreme of "rules first" and then 4E began to return to a more DM's Fiat/Ad Hoc approach. This is exemplified in NPC design, where if you want an NPC to be able to do something they just do it - you don't have to detail every attribute that they have, as in 3.5E. Monster stat blocks only cover what a monster can do, or even is likely to do in a given combat; they aren't meant to be comprehensive, unlike 3.5E stat blocks.

That said, what you say applies to combat, I think. 4E's combat rules are more tightly covered. One of things I don't like about powers is that they give so many options to the PCs that they are less likely to wing it and try something creative.

 

[CuRoi]

I always see people bemoaning the fact that Fighters aren't worth playing in 3e/3.5e. But some changes that I don't think are mentioend above that very much affected the fighter were:

From 2e to 3e -
Fighters (and their subtypes) could gain Exceptional Strength, other classes could not. In 3e everyone uses the same chart.
Fighters (and their subtypes) gained more hit points for above average Constitution scores than non-fighters in 2e. 3e everyone gets the same.
Also as mentioned, Fighters were the only ones to get iterative attacks.

Combine all this with the massive increase in magical power and item/spell available that either boosts or overrides physical stats in 3e and suddenly, yeah, the fighter is very much less attractive.

Not to mention damage from both character and monster sources multiplied exponentially between the two editions. This is very much a result of scaling attributes sky high with magic items and the explosion in hit points (as mentioned previously).

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I always see people bemoaning the fact that Fighters aren't worth playing in 3e/3.5e. But some changes that I don't think are mentioend above that very much affected the fighter were:

From 2e to 3e -
Fighters (and their subtypes) could gain Exceptional Strength, other classes could not. In 3e everyone uses the same chart.

Not much use for a fighter who rolled a 16 Strength. Or 13.

Fighters (and their subtypes) gained more hit points for above average Constitution scores than non-fighters in 2e. 3e everyone gets the same.

See above, only replace Strength with Constitution.

Also as mentioned, Fighters were the only ones to get iterative attacks.

Weapon Specialization rocked in 2e. Unfortunately, that was the only thing a fighter who didn't roll mega-awesome on stats had going for them.

So, from my PoV, 2e wasn't balanced in the first place, making analyzing class power rather difficult.

 

[Lanefan]

One of the big changes I saw from 1E was the loss of randomness. 30% chance the dragon is asleep, potion miscibility, (never ever used that word outside of D&D)

3.5 had little randomness, and 4E has even less.

Other than the d20 and such.

Excellent call. You're absolutely right; and you've hit a fundamental reason why I stick to 1e that I never really give much thought to otherwise.

Another significant change:
1e: coming back from the dead was not automatic and cost you a Con. point and some money*.
3e: (I'm not sure, the version I played was houseruled up the wazoo in this aspect; but I know it cost you a level and some money*)
4e: coming back from the dead is automatic (I think) and costs ... what, other than some money*?

* - "money" here defined as whatever sacrifices and-or spell components are required for the particular revival spell being used that either the deceased or her party have to pay.

Lan-"the d20 should be the beginning of randomness, not the end of it"-efan

 

[ExploderWizard]

They were all different games designed with different goals. People will gravitate to the ones with goals that are more or less in line with their own.

Knowing the nuts and bolts of the differences won't change preferences.