A difficult question

[Steely_Dan]

4E wasn't a bigger change from 3.5E than 3E was from 2E. 4E was certainly further away from AD&D than 3E was, and the first statment may not be obvious to those who played 3E/3.5E as AD&D as opposed to those who played 3E as 3E.

off the top of my head,
major changes from 2e to 3e that were retained in 4e
- fixed ability modifiers
- fort/ref/will saves/defenses
- increasing BAB
- increasing AC
- feats exist
- skills exist
- non-vancian casters exist in the core rules
- bards can heal
- interrupting casting is very difficult
- no racial level limits
- no racial restrictions on classes
- non-humans no longer strictly better than humans (except for level limits)
- multi-classed characters no longer strictly better than single-classed characters (except for level limits)
- existence of a standardized conditions list
- rogue sneak attack from flanking

The AEDU system, I rest my case...a bizarre little Dungeons & Dragons Miniatures game variant (a good one) that Heinsoo & co. concocted that I don't want to be a part of anymore (did it for years....done).

 

[Grabuto138]

Yes, it was, massively so, let's not get silly.

Silly? I distinctly remember when my group drove up to Gencon from Chicago and bought the 3e Player's Handbook. It was such a profound deviation from the game we knew that it blew our minds all out of proportion. 3e, not 4e, was the game-changer.

And I am happy for it. I would be fine if 5e was a rebooted 3e, incorporating lessons learned. I would be even better if 5e was really 4.5, clearing all the cludge from some obvious early misfires. I will not, however, go back to playing 1e/2e. Anything that relies on DM fiat distracts from roleplaying and world building. I am too old to spend my time negotiating with the DM.

Edit: Irrelevant fun fact. In the Lake Geneva Gencons the local strippers would dress as superheroes and pass out flyers for the game nerds. Ain't capitalism grand.

 

[Steely_Dan]

1) I distinctly remember when my group drove up to Gencon from Chicago and bought the 3e Player's Handbook. It was such a profound deviation from the game we knew that it blew our minds all out of proportion. 3e, not 4e, was the game-changer.

2) And I am happy for it. I would be fine if 5e was a rebooted 3e

3) Edit: Irrelevant fun fact. In the Lake Geneva Gencons the local strippers would dress as superheroes and pass out flyers for the game nerds. Ain't capitalism grand.

1) Exactly (3rd Ed was the beginning of the silliness).

2) I'm hoping for a cleaned up 1st/2nd Ed, ya know, D&D.

3) Man, did I miss out, sounds grand.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Yes, it was, massively so, let's not get silly.

I think you're the one being silly, though there's multiple ways to look at it.

1. If you compare 4E to mature, supplement heavy 3.5E it's an obvious smaller change than 2E-3E
2. If you compare 4E to core-only 3.5E objectively as 3.5 truly was, it's still less of a change than 2E-3E.
3. If you compare 4E to 3.x interpreted through an AD&D lens, 4E is a bigger change.
4. If you are comparing both 4E and 3.x to AD&D, as oppose to each other, 4E is the bigger change.

You seem to be #3 or #4 , when the reality is #1 and #2 .

 

[thecasualoblivion]

The AEDU system, I rest my case...a bizarre little Dungeons & Dragons Miniatures game variant (a good one) that Heinsoo & co. concocted that I don't want to be a part of anymore (did it for years....done).

I consider 3E multiclassing to be a far bigger and especially a deeper change than AEDU. Deeper in regards to moving D&D away from a class based system and more towards a point based model.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

I'm hoping for a cleaned up 1st/2nd Ed, ya know, D&D.

Thanks for the edition war.

 

[B.T.]

Thanks for the edition war.

Because you totally weren't hoping for that in the first place.

 

[Lwaxy]

Don't assume you know what someone else is thinking.

Don't edition war either. It wouldn't even matter if someone "would be hoping for it" - if you bait, you aren't innocent.

Thanks

 

[jrowland]

In addition to my previous post that 4E is more similar to 1E (in spirit, not in actual mechanics) I think I'll chime in on the "which edition was a bigger change"

To me, AD&D (1E/2E) to 3E was the biggest mechanical change. However, 3E to 4E is the biggest "User Interface" change. I am sure you could point out mechanics in 4E (surges, eg) that are new, but any 'new' edition will have some 'innovation'. The switch directly from 3E to 4E may even have some jarring mechanics if you never played AD&D or BECMI, but that doesn't make it a "big change" in my book. Multiclassing comes to mind, 4E is more like AD&D and 3E is the outlier. It may be a change, but not something new to D&D or wildly different from what went before.

The Pre-4E and early 4E angst was mostly centered on it being "dumbed down D&D" as a CCG, video game, or limited skills/powers, etc. Not as something "not D&D", at least not to the extent 3E was vilified as "not D&D" when it debuted. "Sacred Cow killing" was the hot buzz-phrase back then. By 4E's launch, nobody seemed to care as much about sacred cows: they had been slain.

4E may be "deeper in the woods", but its not that big of a change from being only "slightly in the woods". 2E and previous are "not in the woods at all"

That is all my opinion, of course. I'll note I play 4E currently. Its a fun take on D&D. I liked 3E, 2E, 1E, and BECMI too. They are all fine takes on D&D. If 5E can pull of its design goals, that is, if it can allow me to pick and choose the best elements from each to build MY game, I'll be happier than a pig in dung. I doubt that'll happen.

Most likely, it will be another interesting take on D&D. I am cool with that.

 

[Steely_Dan]

I consider 3E multiclassing to be a far bigger and especially a deeper change than AEDU.

...so...so that's what you have...3rd Ed multi-classing; we all know it became a nightmare, I am in no way advocating front-loladed cherry-picking garbage; anything else?