What changed between editions

[huginn12]

I am returning to d&d after several years and was wondering is there some site that contains a list of what changed between editions

 

[Ath-kethin]

Depending on how long it's been since you played, and what edition you're coming from, massive, massive amounts have changed.

Your best bet is to check out the free D&D Basic Rules from the WotC website: http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/basicrules

It's a streamlined version of the rules, but it's free and will bring you up to date on how the game operates now.

 

[Celebrim]

I am returning to d&d after several years and was wondering is there some site that contains a list of what changed between editions

You could usefully compare 1e and 1.5 (changes wrought by the 1e Unearthed Arcana), changes between 1e and 2e, and between 3e and 3.5e. Even those lists would be fairly extensive, but they would be short enough to make a useful comparison.

But the changes between most editions are so massive that they are practically speaking entirely different games. Third edition, fourth edition, and fifth edition each brought about massive changes compared to the prior editions, so much so that it would be a much more useful list to compare what has remained the same between editions. But even things like "what is a hit point, and what does it represent", have changed in important conceptual ways between editions.

Generally speaking, 4e represents the most massive outlier and will feel the most unfamiliar to someone coming from one of the other editions. The other editions can conceivably play something alike despite all their differences, so that I feel fairly sure I could run 1e, 2e, 3e, and 5e in a common style. But there are large differences between them nonetheless.

1e: Eclectic, arcane, stacks of independent systems. Obvious legacy in tabletop wargaming. Very much mix and match rules, often poorly understood by the tables that used them, and as such almost every table plays with a different subset of the rules, using different simplifications to speed play. Very high reliance on DM adjudication by fiat, leading to an intensely important metagame. Rules in the DMG assume a Gygaxian dungeon/haven setting is the norm, and that the purpose of play is developing player skill. Later rule books begin to subtly alter the game by adding new modular stacks of rules.

2e: Attempts to unify, codify, and simplify the 1e rules systems while retaining much of what makes them by then familiar. Fewer examples of rules that are one offs, as can be seen in how dragons are treated differently between the two systems. Initiative is overhauled, NWP's become a standardized part of the core rules, bards are in as a core class rather than a pseudo-prestige class, but paladins and barbarians are out. The rules in the DMG assume no setting, and that the purpose of play is creating a story.

3e: The 1e flavor is restored - barbarians and paladins are back in, and the core spell list will look very familiar to anyone who played late 1e. But the game's engine is tweaked to become a universal rules engine, along the lines of something like BRP or GURPS. Fallout style 'Feats' appear as character building options. A true skill system replaces NWP's and silo'd skills like thief abilities. Some classes like 'thief' and 'ranger', get slightly more generic incarnations. Sorcerer makes an appearance as a qausi-Vancian core spellcaster class. Monsters begin to use the same basic rules that apply to PC's, and acquire strength, constitution, and other ability scores, skills, feats, and so forth. The DMG rules assume something somewhere between the 1e and 2e assumptions is going on, largely a series of tactical skirmishes joined by an overarching narrative. However, the game is much more Player centric compared to prior versions, with the assumption that a large part of the game is planning and tweaking your character build. System mastery becomes as important or more important than Gygaxian style "player skill". The rules will get officially overhauled as 3.5e, which will bring massive amounts of rules bloat and optional rules, and further the player centric nature of the game.

4e: D&D as reimagined by someone that hated D&D. Virtually everything except the core ideas of the game is tossed out. Strong influences from video game innovation, particularly Blizzard style games like Diablo and World of Warcraft. But also strong conceptual influences from FORGE and Indy gaming, particularly the idea that a game system can only do one thing well and can only support one type of play, and so therefore systems must be unified around achieving this core idea of their gameplay. Very strong reaction to the general poor balance of 3e resulting in all classes sharing unified design concepts, which can be thought of as "everyone is a spellcaster" and "spells are powers/powers are spells that you use to overcome combat obstacles". Classes are reimagined as primarily pawns with tactical roles in a table top wargame, with non-combat activity being left largely to the fiat of the DM. Tons of new classes are introduced, each with their own spell/power list. The DMG assumes that players will largely want to be doing at high level basically what they were doing at low level. Completely abandons the idea of NPCs using the same rules as PCs.

5e: Almost complete rejection of the 4e approach in favor of streamlining 3e. Arguably, is conceptually to 3e what the BECMI rules were to 1e, in the desire for a simpler and more approachable game without some much of the arcane subsystems that could get in the way of DM adjudication. Attempts to fix the spellcaster/non-caster balance issues by massively reducing the power of spellcasters at high level. One area of 4e that is partially retained is the idea of NPCs and PCs using the same rules, as 5e adopts a moderate position between that of 3e and 4e on the subject.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I am returning to d&d after several years and was wondering is there some site that contains a list of what changed between editions

What's really important is what changed between the last edition you were really familiar with, and the current edition. Because a lot may have changed - and changed back.

So what's the edition you're most familiar & comfortable with?

 

[Raith5]

. Classes are reimagined as primarily pawns with tactical roles in a table top wargame, with non-combat activity being left largely to the fiat of the DM.

This is a great overview of the editions,but the war game element has always been there in D&D (and perhaps stronger in 1e) and non-combating role playing has always been shaped by the DM. I see 4e more in terms of "mechanics everywhere" which back up long existing aspects of D&D, rather than directing the player to do something new.

The one warning I would add is that 4e is a very cinematic game that goes from scene to scene, rather than room to room. It is not good at replicating big dungeon crawls but good a replicating big combats.

 

[pemerton]

I am returning to d&d after several years and was wondering is there some site that contains a list of what changed between editions

If you're familiar with AD&D, the main differences you will notice in 5e are (i) that spells don't scale with caster level, (ii) that saving throws generally don't improve with character level, and (iii) that AC goes up rather than down. Otherwise, the changes to PC building and monster stat blocks will be pretty self-explanatory.

If you're familiar with 3E, the main differences you will notice in 5e are (i) that spells don't scale with caster level, (ii) that the numbers tend to be smaller (especially above low levels) and (iii) that the "maths" of the game is much tighter than it was in 3E.

If you're familiar with 4e, the main differences you will notice in 5e are (i) that non-spell casters have fewer/less varies class abilities, (ii) that the numbers tend to be smaller (especially above low levels) and (iii) that there are no systematic mechanics for non-combat resolution.

 

[Ath-kethin]

2e: Attempts to unify, codify, and simplify the 1e rules systems while retaining much of what makes them by then familiar. Fewer examples of rules that are one offs, as can be seen in how dragons are treated differently between the two systems. Initiative is overhauled, NWP's become a standardized part of the core rules, bards are in as a core class rather than a pseudo-prestige class, but paladins and barbarians are out. The rules in the DMG assume no setting, and that the purpose of play is creating a story.

Paladins were part of 2e core. Assassins, barbarians, monks, and half-orcs were out. Also demons were out, sort of, for a while.

I completely agree that while Basic/1e/2e can be viewed and used more or less interchangeably and are the most easily compatible, other editions should really be approached as different games.

Which is why I encourage the OP to just check out the free 5e Basic rules and read through them.

No matter which edition a person is coming from, the basic ideas still exist - classes, races, hit points, and so forth - but their interpretation and implementation can be quite different.

 

[Sunseeker]

I am returning to d&d after several years and was wondering is there some site that contains a list of what changed between editions

A lot. I would put the burden back on you and ask: what about D&D are you hoping they kept? It's probably shorter to answer if D&D still has what you're looking for than to guess what edition you're coming from and tell you how that's different from the most current edition.

 

[Celebrim]

This is a great overview of the editions,but the war game element has always been there in D&D (and perhaps stronger in 1e)...

Which is why I pointed to 1e's very strong and obvious links to war gaming. Those have never completely went away, but I have seen BECMI and 2e in particular largely played in a theater of the mind style, with largely subjective positioning (as a practical matter, often 'in melee' and 'not in melee') and little attention paid to tactics.

...and non-combating role playing has always been shaped by the DM.

3e in particular tried to give DMs a unified approach to adjudicating non-combat situations, effectively turning a bunch of ad hoc rulings and house rules that 1e and 2e had accumulated over the years (even in published works) into a single simpler 'skills' system, with the idea of a target difficulty and so forth.

...I see 4e more in terms of "mechanics everywhere" which back up long existing aspects of D&D, rather than directing the player to do something new.

The one warning I would add is that 4e is a very cinematic game that goes from scene to scene, rather than room to room. It is not good at replicating big dungeon crawls but good a replicating big combats.

The first paragraph is contradicted by the second.

While 1e had no unified approach to exploration and relied heavily on a metagame negotiation to discover and overcome features of the environment that has been disparagingly called 'pixel bitching', the game still assumed on a meta-level that exploration between and within rooms was still a big part of the game. In fact, the example of play in the 1e DMG spends far more time on the players proposing to explore the environment and learn about it than it does on combat. It actually cuts from the example of play when the large combat occurs, as if how to play a combat would be obvious from the rules. 4e on the other hand assumes that this exploratory game - this simulation of the whole world if you will - won't be a big part of play, and instead far and away the dominate focus of play will be on producing exciting and yes cinematic combat scenes. Almost the whole game is assumed to occur within the framework of combat, so that for example, traps are expected to be used primarily as terrain and complications within the framework of combat, and not so much as complications of the exploratory portion of the game.

Probably the most definitive part of this is that characters were given powers that almost exclusively were meant to be used in combat. So while a 1e thief's powers are mostly useful in the exploratory phase of the game, the 4e rogue is almost exclusively about doing cool things in combat. The game is paced specifically around 'encounters', which are 'combat encounters', and for which you have 'encounter powers', which are actually 'combat encounter powers'. No one really has daily powers like, "Find secret door." or "Initiate a Parlay" or "Decipher a clue." and the general design is that problems are combats which will be overcome by timely application of one of your listed powers. This is a massively different assumption than exists in 1e through 3e. The idea of the open ended negotiation of the scene implicit in 1e is almost completely gone. You could port it back in of course, and some did, but the game does not expect you to and certainly does not guide a new player to do so.

 

[Celebrim]

Paladins were part of 2e core. Assassins, barbarians, monks, and half-orcs were out. Also demons were out, sort of, for a while.

To be honest, I more or less skipped straight from 1e to 3e, so exactly how 2e tried to force its world on to the player I don't really remember. I just remember that if you had an existing campaign world, with existing characters and demographic assumptions, you were forced to break your world to accommodate the designer's preferences.

I completely agree that while Basic/1e/2e can be viewed and used more or less interchangeably and are the most easily compatible, other editions should really be approached as different games.

1e/2e are quite compatible, and we used 2e books as supplementary material at our 1e table. But I'd be careful about adding BECMI to that mix. One aspect of BECMI that was quite unique, and very well thought out, was the order of play in combat occurred in phases. This is different than 1e AD&D's turn order, which occurred loosely in segments and assumed secret simultaneous declaration (which almost no one ever used). And there are lots of other small differences which accumulated the more 1e and BECMI's rule sets diverged over time, so that by 1990 or so, BECMI and 1e AD&D were very different games.