D&D 4E Bridging the cognitive gap between how the game rules work and what they tell us about the setting

[James Gasik]

i mean...is it even just a precursor at that point?

Well, maybe not. I have a friend who thinks Feats are a ridiculous idea and lays the blame on WotC for "giving away class features for free" (his words, not mine). The idea that they could be a product of TSR design amuses me.

EDIT: and yet, he seems to think it's perfectly ok for Kits to hand out Weapon Specialization to non-Fighters. Go figure. I mean, there's a Kit in Al Qadim that gives it to THIEVES, for Gygax's sake!

EDIT EDIT: and just as I typed that, I recall in his Gord the Rogue novels saying that training at the Fighter's Guild gave Gord a +1 to hit with longswords...

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

It is interesting that The Celts book has the precursor to Feats though. Even called Feats!

2e has basically ALL the stuff that 3e has, except for level-by-level free MCing. Its a patchwork and the terminology is a mess, but it is all there. Mainly 3e just introduced free MCing and reworked the NWP system into a more rational form, and introduced generally much cleaner implementations of things and regularized terminology. A lot of numbers are different, which created a slew of problems, but all of 3e is latent in late-era 2e material. It was just a giant mess.

 

[Micah Sweet]

2e has basically ALL the stuff that 3e has, except for level-by-level free MCing. Its a patchwork and the terminology is a mess, but it is all there. Mainly 3e just introduced free MCing and reworked the NWP system into a more rational form, and introduced generally much cleaner implementations of things and regularized terminology. A lot of numbers are different, which created a slew of problems, but all of 3e is latent in late-era 2e material. It was just a giant mess.

again, so much trash talk about editions you don't like.

 

[James Gasik]

2e has basically ALL the stuff that 3e has, except for level-by-level free MCing. Its a patchwork and the terminology is a mess, but it is all there. Mainly 3e just introduced free MCing and reworked the NWP system into a more rational form, and introduced generally much cleaner implementations of things and regularized terminology. A lot of numbers are different, which created a slew of problems, but all of 3e is latent in late-era 2e material. It was just a giant mess.

There is certainly a lot of 2e DNA in 3e. I mean, when we first started playing 3e, I had someone constantly griping to me that attacks of opportunity were the worst idea ever. At the time, I didn't see a ton of difference between an AoO and the free hit you got on a retreating foe and said as much, lol.

It wasn't until later I recalled seeing attacks of opportunity before, in the 2e Player's Option books.

 

[hawkeyefan]

again, so much trash talk about editions you don't like.

Was this in response to the OP?

No?

Weird.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Was this in response to the OP?

No?

Weird.

I don't recall the OP calling 4e "a huge mess" for example, but if he did than this applies to them too.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

There is certainly a lot of 2e DNA in 3e. I mean, when we first started playing 3e, I had someone constantly griping to me that attacks of opportunity were the worst idea ever. At the time, I didn't see a ton of difference between an AoO and the free hit you got on a retreating foe and said as much, lol.

It wasn't until later I recalled seeing attacks of opportunity before, in the 2e Player's Option books.

Right, I would assume that the 3e project started out as basically "lets clean up 2e and replace THAC0 with increasing AC as a base DC for attacks" (an obvious idea that I actually implemented as a house rule in 2e, though it proved to be too much work to keep explaining it to people). I mean, clearly WotC needed to roll out some sort of new edition to get the game back in print anyway. IMHO the changes ended up being less than incredibly well thought out, but it was a logical move and they did create a much cleaner game in most ways.

 

[Umbran]

again, so much trash talk about editions you don't like.

Mod Note:
As if folks would trash-talk editions they do like?

If you feel someone is breaking the rules, then please report the post. Otherwise, please don't try to police other people's expression.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I don't recall the OP calling 4e "a huge mess" for example, but if he did than this applies to them too.

I mean, the OP criticizes an edition. It seems that’s the entire point of the thread.

If criticizing an edition is acceptable, then so is criticizing other editions.

That 2e was a bit scattered across many different books… aka a mess… seems like a valid criticism based on my memory of it.

If you don’t think it was a mess, then say why not. But don’t just complain about others’ opinions. Especially not when you didn’t seem to mind it from the very start of this thread.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I mean, the OP criticizes an edition. It seems that’s the entire point of the thread.

If criticizing an edition is acceptable, then so is criticizing other editions.

That 2e was a bit scattered across many different books… aka a mess… seems like a valid criticism based on my memory of it.

If you don’t think it was a mess, then say why not. But don’t just complain about others’ opinions. Especially not when you didn’t seem to mind it from the very start of this thread.

My issue is with how it is criticized, as if the problems are objective truths and not one person's opinions.