Monte Cook and 5e

[Dannyalcatraz]

This is certainly a subjective thing to a degree, but I think the vast majority of gamers who have been here from 1e to 4e found 4e to be the biggest break from previous editions. I suppose it boils down to what aspects of the game you hobe in on. IMO 4e is a much more drastic alteration of the game than 1e, 2e, or 3e.

And to be honest, I hear it from 4Edphiles as well. IOW, saying 4ed is the biggest change is not a view held exclusively by non-adopters or others who have not fully embraced 4Ed as their game of choice.

 

[FireLance]

I'd say that the biggest problem in converting from 3e to 4e is the hard cap on the complexity of each 4e PC. Different classes are thus affected to different degrees.

It probably wouldn't be too difficult to convert a 3e fighter or rogue to 4e.

It would be somewhat harder to convert a 3e ranger or paladin.

Converting a high-level 3e cleric, druid or wizard would be very hard, if it was even possible in the first place. The difference in complexity would be so stark that the new character would feel very different from the old one.

 

[Bedrockgames]

And to be honest, I hear it from 4Edphiles as well. IOW, saying 4ed is the biggest change is not a view held exclusively by non-adopters or others who have not fully embraced 4Ed as their game of choice.

I see this as well.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

And then there's the whole multiclassing thing.

 

[Rechan]

This is certainly a subjective thing to a degree, but I think the vast majority of gamers who have been here from 1e to 4e found 4e to be the biggest break from previous editions. I suppose it boils down to what aspects of the game you hobe in on. IMO 4e is a much more drastic alteration of the game than 1e, 2e, or 3e.

I think there's some confusion, maybe on my part.

The original comment was AuldGrump said

They are why those who prefer 4e prefer it, and why those who do not like 4e cannot stand it.

And then I said

That discounts those who have played all editions, enjoyed them, and enjoy 4e too.

My point was that AuldGrump was saying 4e's differences created a binary response: either you hate 4e for its differences, or you love it for its differences. This discounts any middle ground. There are some posters on the board who have played 1e-4e and also enjoy 4e. I can name them, but I can't speak for how drastic they find the change.

Then the argument became that they are too divergent. I don't think they're too divergent. But I can't make aspersions about what most thin about this or that. I also came into D&D at the taiil end of 2e AD&D, so I got to see the transition from 2e to 3e, and then 3e to 4e.

I mean it's hard for me to tell what we're talking about what's different and what's not different. From what I understand, an adventure in 1e combat ran for what, ten minutes? In 3e, a low level combat could take 45. That's different. It means running a 1e style mod where there's monsters all over the place can have much more a sloggy feel. Does that qualify sa different? 2e had a large emphasis on Keeps and Followers; that's what you did with your gold. That was barely touched on in 3e, where gold was all about affording magical items..Those are different. But that's not difference we're talking about, so...

It's not like we're going from GURPs to HERO.

 

[kimble]

And to be honest, I hear it from 4Edphiles as well. IOW, saying 4ed is the biggest change is not a view held exclusively by non-adopters or others who have not fully embraced 4Ed as their game of choice.

I live in Brazil and people are always saying that around here. But most people here never read most 3.x books (they were never translated and most players can´t read in english), so they never read Book of Nine Swords (and had fighters that could do more than full attack all the time), or had a warlock as player character (at-will utility spells) or used substitue feats (at-will attack spells). Or even heard about Unearthed Arcana (being able to heal yourself without magic).
A lot of things that 4e has, are just 3.x experimentations that end up on the core system. I can agree that 3e and 4e are really different, but only if you consider the core books and just that. If you look at the supplements, it´s all the same design, that has been in development since 3.0.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

I think there's some confusion, maybe on my part.

The original comment was AuldGrump said
And then I said
My point was that AuldGrump was saying 4e's differences created a binary response: either you hate 4e for its differences, or you love it for its differences. This discounts any middle ground. There are some posters on the board who have played 1e-4e and also enjoy 4e. I can name them, but I can't speak for how drastic they find the change.

Then the argument became that they are too divergent. I don't think they're too divergent. But I can't make aspersions about what most thin about this or that. I also came into D&D at the taiil end of 2e AD&D, so I got to see the transition from 2e to 3e, and then 3e to 4e.

I mean it's hard for me to tell what we're talking about what's different and what's not different. From what I understand, an adventure in 1e combat ran for what, ten minutes? In 3e, a low level combat could take 45. That's different. It means running a 1e style mod where there's monsters all over the place can have much more a sloggy feel. Does that qualify sa different? 2e had a large emphasis on Keeps and Followers; that's what you did with your gold. That was barely touched on in 3e, where gold was all about affording magical items..Those are different. But that's not difference we're talking about, so...

It's not like we're going from GURPs to HERO.

Yes - do parse what I actually said and what you quoted.

They are why those who prefer 4e prefer it, and why those who do not like 4e cannot stand it.

You do notice that there is no mention of the folks that like both, don't you? 'They are why those who prefer 4e' - you know, those folks with actual preferences for 4e? 'and why those that don't like 4e - you know, those folks that don't like 4e?

Guess what? It does not claim that everybody is on either side, just that there are folks that are on one side or the other. And that those are among the reasons for that division.

You are making an argument where there isn't one.

My reply, in turn, was to your claim that there is no serious difference between 3.X and 4e, which makes me call shenanigans.

The Auld Grump, shenanigans, I tell you!

 

[Rogue Agent]

What is "classic D&D 1974-2008 gameplay"? That's a pretty huge span.

You can take a module written for any edition of D&D from 1974 to 2008, run it in any edition of D&D from 1974 to 2008, and have a nearly identical playing experience.

(There are a handful of exceptions: Sleep. Giants. Dragons. A handful of other spells and monsters that had their effects or balance seriously revised. Taking PCs from any edition and backing them up into a previous edition can also be difficult due to missing options, but the reverse is usually trivial except for demi-human multiclassing and BECMI's race-as-class.)

Take that same module and run it in 4E and the first problem you'll run into is that you're no longer able to do a straight-forward stat-block for stat-block conversion. (This is true for both the monsters and the PCs.) Overcome that and you'll discover that the module plays very differently in previous editions than it does in 4E.

You can do the reverse, too: Take 4E modules and run them in previous editions for significantly different gameplay experiences.

Well that was just a poor choice on WotC's part. Conversion isn't that difficult once you understand the principles you're dealing with. It wasn't easy just starting out - because you would have been trying to interpret 8 years of 3e options with the first 4e PHB. Now, with 3 years of options, it's easy to convert.

Show me the 4E PC that has Vancian spellcasting and plays just like a 1E magic-user.

... you can't do that? Right. That's because the gameplay was fundamentally altered. I can make that character in 3E trivially. It's completely impossible in 4E.

And that's just the most straight-forward example. There really is a major shift in pre-4E (which focused on strategic challenges) and 4E (which focuses almost entirely on tactical challenges) that has a deep and meaningful impact on gameplay.

Really? If you cannot see the difference then I don't think that I can make you see.

There's probably a lot of truth to that. If you can't see how playing a fighter or magic-user or thief in 1E is pretty much identical to playing a fighter or wizard or rogue in 3E (despite the math being inverted), then I don't think any amount of forum discussion is going to make you see it.

3E was a major departure in terms of how the math worked. Getting everything pointed in the same direction and most of the system operating off a unified mechanic was a major change. But the fundamental gameplay really wasn't shifted that much.

They create a modular game that can start off simple and played like OD&D of old, then scaled up with rules options until it's like 3.X, and additional options that can be added or taken away to make it be more like 4e if you wish.

Or a Modular system of D&D instead of one straight strong fiat.

Honestly? You might as well take a gun, put it into D&D's mouth, and pull the trigger.

I get the appeal of a modular system for system-tweakers and (some) experienced players. But such a game would have all the mainstream appeal of a root canal.

Nor is it clear to me how you could possibly produce supplementary material that could be simultaneously compatible with an OD&D-like game, a 3E-like game, and a 4E-like game.

 

[Viking Bastard]

I find the differences between pre-3e and 3e much starker than the differences between 3e and 4e, and I was baffled by those that thought otherwise when I first got into 4e. But as I read through forum discussions, blog posts etc, and prodded people for explanations, I started to get where people were coming from.

And I think it boils down to this (for me, at least): I always used to play D&D in a way 4e supports very well, so to me 4e just feels like a streamlined version of 3e.

 

[kimble]

You can take a module written for any edition of D&D from 1974 to 2008, run it in any edition of D&D from 1974 to 2008, and have a nearly identical playing experience. (...) Take that same module and run it in 4E and the first problem you'll run into is that you're no longer able to do a straight-forward stat-block for stat-block conversion.

I actually tried that while Gming 3.0. Never really worked. Magic, classes, rules, they are just too different. Even how the classes interact changed along the years. Pre-3e, it´s fighter = meat shield, spellcaster = glass canon. After 3e, it´s fighters = hireling/sidekick, spellcasters = solo mode.

Maybe you just knew the rules better than me, but I could never really make it work.