Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="tankschmidt" data-source="post: 4502972" data-attributes="member: 35915">I don't really see it either.&nbsp; If 4e is similar to any other version of D&amp;D, it'd have to be 3e.&nbsp; Both have an in-depth skill system in which success depends more on rolling a check rather than describing your character's action.&nbsp; Both have a unified mechanic and a highly codified set of rules.&nbsp; The art in both editions is similar.&nbsp; Both have a lot of options for mechanical character customization -- all the way from point-buying of ability scores to selecting feats.&nbsp; Both have lengthy, detailed stat blocks for monsters.&nbsp; In these two editions, all classes advance at the same rate, and there has been some effort to balance the classes against each other in power level (obviously, 3e was less than successful). Neither edition has any race/class restrictions or demihuman level limits.&nbsp; Neither rewards experience points for acquiring treasure.&nbsp; Both seem to indicate that magical items can be purchased, while OD&amp;D did not even include monetary values for magical items.&nbsp; In both games, encounters are intended to be scaled to the level of the PCs.Actually, 4e goes even further from the game's roots than 3e did.&nbsp; Vancian magic has been completely reworked, monsters are now core races (and vice-versa, RAWR), and there's no 10' pole in the equipment table.&nbsp; Moreover, 4e includes no wandering monster tables or random magical item tables.The fact is that D&amp;D's roots are set in a hobbyist, do-it-yourself culture, and every publication since about 1985 has been more slick, streamlined, professional, and in a sense more tightly regulated.&nbsp; The original game was meant to be refereed on the fly, with fast-and-loose rulings.&nbsp; I'll concede that in some ways, 4e does lend itself to more intuitive off-the-cuff rulings, but that alone does not make for a significant step back to the roots of the hobby.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="tankschmidt, post: 4502972, member: 35915"] I don't really see it either. If 4e is similar to any other version of D&D, it'd have to be 3e. Both have an in-depth skill system in which success depends more on rolling a check rather than describing your character's action. Both have a unified mechanic and a highly codified set of rules. The art in both editions is similar. Both have a lot of options for mechanical character customization -- all the way from point-buying of ability scores to selecting feats. Both have lengthy, detailed stat blocks for monsters. In these two editions, all classes advance at the same rate, and there has been some effort to balance the classes against each other in power level (obviously, 3e was less than successful). Neither edition has any race/class restrictions or demihuman level limits. Neither rewards experience points for acquiring treasure. Both seem to indicate that magical items can be purchased, while OD&D did not even include monetary values for magical items. In both games, encounters are intended to be scaled to the level of the PCs. Actually, 4e goes even further from the game's roots than 3e did. Vancian magic has been completely reworked, monsters are now core races (and vice-versa, RAWR), and there's no 10' pole in the equipment table. Moreover, 4e includes no wandering monster tables or random magical item tables. The fact is that D&D's roots are set in a hobbyist, do-it-yourself culture, and every publication since about 1985 has been more slick, streamlined, professional, and in a sense more tightly regulated. The original game was meant to be refereed on the fly, with fast-and-loose rulings. I'll concede that in some ways, 4e does lend itself to more intuitive off-the-cuff rulings, but that alone does not make for a significant step back to the roots of the hobby. [/QUOTE]

Verification