basic differences in rules per edition

[Herremann the Wise]

I think people have covered most of the main areas of change.

A noticeable change for me from 3e to 4e was the feel that a computer could "run" the encounter. All game effects are specifically defined so as a computer could judge exactly what would happen.

I occasionally play (and enjoy) MTGO (Magic: the Gathering Online) and the benefits of such a change are obvious: I can play Magic online at any time and "get my fix". With the Vitual Table Top (that looks like it is finally becoming a reality even if it will have reduced functionality to begin with), it looks like D&D will be in a similar boat.

Imagine if you could pay a ticket (or whatever the online currency would be) to play in a particular Dungeon Delve or Adventure Module where you craft a new character (or bring a previous one) and play with the servers acting as DM. Perhaps you could purchase monthly released "pieces" - perhaps even collectible pieces such as special monsters - so that you could craft your own modules and have other people play in them (and if they were "good" enough, be selected as an "official" module so that you earned online currency for your own creations)? Nirvana for some, a time & money sink for others, and "THE" nightmare for rest of us.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Stormonu]

A noticeable change for me from 3e to 4e was the feel that a computer could "run" the encounter. All game effects are specifically defined so as a computer could judge exactly what would happen.

I think the original gold box D&D games point otherwise; even back to 1E the computer could still run the encounter.

 

[CuRoi]

Imagine if you could pay a ticket (or whatever the online currency would be) to play in a particular Dungeon Delve or Adventure Module where you craft a new character (or bring a previous one) and play with the servers acting as DM. Perhaps you could purchase monthly released "pieces" - perhaps even collectible pieces such as special monsters - so that you could craft your own modules and have other people play in them (and if they were "good" enough, be selected as an "official" module so that you earned online currency for your own creations)? Nirvana for some, a time & money sink for others, and "THE" nightmare for rest of us.

I believe this has been done before. It's called "Neverwinter Nights".

IMO though, without sitting across from people at the table and the skittering of dice, the game is terrible IMO. I don't want to wrestle with dodgy VoiP, aimlessly wandering players, server issues and computer generated rolls for my fun. I get enough "social media" overload as it is. Seeing people in person and playing a social game is what I'm looking for.

I wholeheartedly agree though - 4e does have more of a computer ajudicated feel to it which tying to a past post by Raven Crowking on this topic, tells you why DMs that enjoy storytelling are not thrilled by the system.

 

[CuRoi]

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



See above, only replace Strength with Constitution.



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.

I agree and I don't mean to imply it was perfectly balanced. True, the changes only hurt those who "rolled" better, but they were a special benefit of the class which helped separate it form the rest along with a slightly lower XP progression, better hit points after 10 and the like. Plus, there were some ways a fighter could raise stats and capitalize later on in the game (but I don't recall if there was a solid rule about retroactive HP bonuses, something tells me that wasn't the case).

With 3e, the only thing setting apart the fighter was mostly just "more feats" but boatloads of feats doesn't fix the problem that most spellcasters can destroy a Fighter's strength, outmatch it incredibly, and/or can find some way to get a Fighter's BAB. I don't recall any of those things being that trivial in 1e or 2e.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

You missed what is probably the biggest defining "difference" moments in D&D - what set 2e, 3e, and 4e all down the path they're on now. Someone else mentioned it, but it's worth examining further.

"Gold no longer gives 3x experience."

Boom. Suddenly the game isn't about collecting or stealing loot and gold. Wanna know where the whole "D&D is only about combat" thing got started? It wasn't 4e. It was here.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Another thing missed is multiclassing.

Allow me to quote from somewhere else:

3rd Edition introduced the idea that levels were little packets of abilities and you could mix-and-match them in a variety of ways to make a character; at the time, this was a pretty radical departure from the underlying philosophy of classes, levels, and multiclassing from previous editions. And this new approach created a host of options but also imposed serious new demands on what it took to make a class "balanced" -- demands that were complex enough that lots WotC and 3rd-party designers just failed at it entirely. And, for all the versatility it offered, it was still way more limited than a "classless" system -- and generally required more work than a "classless" system to create any character that didn't just fit squarely into the structure of an existing character class.

4th Edition decided to abandon that idea and go back to classes as a defining archetypes for a character. The feat-based approach is a nod to the general concept of "multiclassing" that's existed in D&D for, like, three decades now, but it's intentionally less complicated, less obtrusive, and less powerful than 3rd Edition's multiclassing system.

"Fighter 2/Rogue 3/Wizard 7/Initiate of Gurgsplk 4" is a weird-ass way to think about "character classes" and looking through class books trying to cherry-pick individual abilities is an annoying way to design a character. All for a subsystem that rewards jacking up specialized bonuses with weird double-dips while actively punishing actual variety and versatility.

EDIT: Why, look at every single sub-version of 3rd Edition: there's some special fighter/mage base class or prestige class because just trying to combine two classes that do different things results in a sucky character. The iconic thing that multiclassing did in AD&D just doesn't work that way in 3rd Edition -- at all!

Also the idea that 4e is based around combat is laughably wrong. I can make a 4e fighter that has almost infinitely more out-of-combat "things to do" then any 3e Fighter.

 

[Katana_Geldar]

And thus the fact that I ran a 4 hour session with one encounter in 4E makes sense, everything else was roleplaying.

 

[Thunderfoot]

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.

I would say that yes, it was taken out -just like the assassin made it back via the splats in 2e, but was never part of the core rules - the PHB2 (and everything released after the core books (in any edition)) is technically extra.

But then, I'm a stickler for semantics; so if you ignore me, no biggie.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

And thus the fact that I ran a 4 hour session with one encounter in 4E makes sense, everything else was roleplaying.

What all two minutes of roleplaying and the rest grinding through the encounter? [I had to read through twice to work out which direction you were coming from.]
I think the thing to note here is that a group will roleplay/do-out-of-combat-stuff as much or as little as they want regardless of edition. To say that one edition was better or worse at it than any other without also referencing the group, the campaign/module or the situation seems a little silly.
I think it is well accepted that 4e spends most of its pages describing combat-related information, which is similar to a slightly greater or lesser extent for all versions of D&D.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Katana_Geldar]

What all two minutes of roleplaying and the rest grinding through the encounter? [I had to read through twice to work out which direction you were coming from.]
I think the thing to note here is that a group will roleplay/do-out-of-combat-stuff as much or as little as they want regardless of edition. To say that one edition was better or worse at it than any other without also referencing the group, the campaign/module or the situation seems a little silly.
I think it is well accepted that 4e spends most of its pages describing combat-related information, which is similar to a slightly greater or lesser extent for all versions of D&D.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

Lets see...game started at five thiry, encounter started at six and was over by seven. Then on until approximately 10pm it was roleplaying and skill checks. Though we were playing the first session, which requires a lot of geroundwork. I expect next session will be wall-to-wall battles.