I could be wrong, and I often am. I believe that the change from 3.5E to 4.0E was the biggest change, and others say the change from 2.0E to 3.0 (or 3.5E) were bigger. I would like to use this thread as a civil, fact based discussion of rule changes from any edition to the next edition, and how significant they were. And if I am shown to be wrong, I will admit it.
Forked from this discussion:
Attribute Stats: The core stats had stayed the same through the editions. There have been some improvements in 3.0E like keeping all the bonus numbers the same. But that is an insignificant change as I see it, because all it took to modify a character or monster was to change a number. 2.0E had Optional Rules and Powers, which split each stat in two. I liked that, but I am in the minority. 4.0E gives you the best of two stats to use for defenses, and that helps hide weaknesses. I prefer the one stat approach, because I do not like hiding character weaknesses.
Skills: They grew from nothing to incoherence in 2.0E to a an abominable list of 40 in 3.xE, to something much more usable in 4.0E. But I see skills as a sidebar to a base character, for the most part you can detach one skill system and add another without really affecting the base character design.
Feats: Pretty much the same as skills, they have improved with each edition. But again, a sidebar to base character design.
Combat: This may be blasphemy, but my group had house ruled out THAC0 long before 3.xE. I really do not see much difference in combat throughout the editions, just some number and source changes. Again, nothing that effected the character at the core of its design.
Classes: At its core, D&D has always had Fighters, Thieves, Clerics, Wizards, and variations on them. Character class is at the core of character design, and each edition has made changes to them. But in my opinion I could take a character from AD&D to 3.5E and still recognize that character as the same one by adjusting the mechanics around its core. However I believe that in going from any previous edition to 4.0E that the core is altered to not make it recognizable from what it once was.
Races: Like classes, at its core D&D is about Humans, Dwarves, Elves, Gnomes, Halflings, Orcs and many other unique and offshoot races introduced to add color. They fought Dragons and other monsters, often in Dungeons. This concept has not changed from edition to edition. 3.xE added the hated LA to exotic races, along with the equally foul monstrous HD. I love that 4.0E dumped them. But this was never a big change in the core character, it was a bookkeeping number change.
Here is my list of comments of likes and dislikes of 4.0E, from a different thread:
What other categories am I missing?
Please comment on what I wrote, and why you agree or disagree with me.
Thank you.
Forked from this discussion:
Attribute Stats: The core stats had stayed the same through the editions. There have been some improvements in 3.0E like keeping all the bonus numbers the same. But that is an insignificant change as I see it, because all it took to modify a character or monster was to change a number. 2.0E had Optional Rules and Powers, which split each stat in two. I liked that, but I am in the minority. 4.0E gives you the best of two stats to use for defenses, and that helps hide weaknesses. I prefer the one stat approach, because I do not like hiding character weaknesses.
Skills: They grew from nothing to incoherence in 2.0E to a an abominable list of 40 in 3.xE, to something much more usable in 4.0E. But I see skills as a sidebar to a base character, for the most part you can detach one skill system and add another without really affecting the base character design.
Feats: Pretty much the same as skills, they have improved with each edition. But again, a sidebar to base character design.
Combat: This may be blasphemy, but my group had house ruled out THAC0 long before 3.xE. I really do not see much difference in combat throughout the editions, just some number and source changes. Again, nothing that effected the character at the core of its design.
Classes: At its core, D&D has always had Fighters, Thieves, Clerics, Wizards, and variations on them. Character class is at the core of character design, and each edition has made changes to them. But in my opinion I could take a character from AD&D to 3.5E and still recognize that character as the same one by adjusting the mechanics around its core. However I believe that in going from any previous edition to 4.0E that the core is altered to not make it recognizable from what it once was.
Races: Like classes, at its core D&D is about Humans, Dwarves, Elves, Gnomes, Halflings, Orcs and many other unique and offshoot races introduced to add color. They fought Dragons and other monsters, often in Dungeons. This concept has not changed from edition to edition. 3.xE added the hated LA to exotic races, along with the equally foul monstrous HD. I love that 4.0E dumped them. But this was never a big change in the core character, it was a bookkeeping number change.
Here is my list of comments of likes and dislikes of 4.0E, from a different thread:
What other categories am I missing?
Please comment on what I wrote, and why you agree or disagree with me.
Thank you.
Last edited:
