Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 3821033" data-attributes="member: 4937">How hard would it be to add any of those things back in as house rules?&nbsp; Of the old loyal fans, what percentage say those things as cludges or as an advantages to the system?&nbsp; And didn't multiclassing restrictions stay in precisely where players felt that they were most important?&nbsp; Is the removal of a restriction something hard to change?Additive.&nbsp; There is a big difference between adding new things to the system or removing old restrictions and transforming things from one thing to another.&nbsp; I see them as neither revolutionary nor even changes.&nbsp; I could drop the 3e skill system straight into a 1e game.&nbsp; Removing multiclassing restrictions wasn't a big change.&nbsp; Changing the way multiclassing works was a big change, and its one that people are still complaining about in a disguised form (namely, the 'gish' fighter-mage is no longer viable as it once was) because while they saw the advantages of the change they weren't completely happy with the implementation.&nbsp; I'd saw that on the whole, changes in multiclassing (and things like unified advancement tables that are part of that) where the biggest and most revolutionary changes in 3e, and also the ones that are in subtle ways the most buggy.Unifying the saving throw mechanic was also a pretty big change, as was scaling saving throw DCs upward to fit the challenge.No, its a much more impressive list of additions.&nbsp; It's a much less impressive list of changes.&nbsp; 3rd edition changed the saving throw mechanic.&nbsp; 4th is replacing it.&nbsp; 3rd edition gave a semi-Vancian alternative to pure Vancian spellcasting.&nbsp; 4th is replacing it across the board.&nbsp; And so forth.&nbsp; People tend to feel more comfortable with for example, now getting a side dish along with thier favorite menu item (because they can always not eat the side dish), than they do with thier favorite menu item changing.&nbsp;I think it was both.&nbsp; I think people like half-orcs, assassins, and dungeons and generally didn't like racial based level limits.&nbsp; I think 2nd edition generated so much contriversy because it took out things that they liked and didn't fix things that they didn't.&nbsp; So all of the hassel and less of the fun.&nbsp; It remains uncertain how they'll react to 4e and whether the 4e design team will take out more fun than they put in, and that will depend on the implementation and the individual.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 3821033, member: 4937"] How hard would it be to add any of those things back in as house rules? Of the old loyal fans, what percentage say those things as cludges or as an advantages to the system? And didn't multiclassing restrictions stay in precisely where players felt that they were most important? Is the removal of a restriction something hard to change? Additive. There is a big difference between adding new things to the system or removing old restrictions and transforming things from one thing to another. I see them as neither revolutionary nor even changes. I could drop the 3e skill system straight into a 1e game. Removing multiclassing restrictions wasn't a big change. Changing the way multiclassing works was a big change, and its one that people are still complaining about in a disguised form (namely, the 'gish' fighter-mage is no longer viable as it once was) because while they saw the advantages of the change they weren't completely happy with the implementation. I'd saw that on the whole, changes in multiclassing (and things like unified advancement tables that are part of that) where the biggest and most revolutionary changes in 3e, and also the ones that are in subtle ways the most buggy. Unifying the saving throw mechanic was also a pretty big change, as was scaling saving throw DCs upward to fit the challenge. No, its a much more impressive list of additions. It's a much less impressive list of changes. 3rd edition changed the saving throw mechanic. 4th is replacing it. 3rd edition gave a semi-Vancian alternative to pure Vancian spellcasting. 4th is replacing it across the board. And so forth. People tend to feel more comfortable with for example, now getting a side dish along with thier favorite menu item (because they can always not eat the side dish), than they do with thier favorite menu item changing. I think it was both. I think people like half-orcs, assassins, and dungeons and generally didn't like racial based level limits. I think 2nd edition generated so much contriversy because it took out things that they liked and didn't fix things that they didn't. So all of the hassel and less of the fun. It remains uncertain how they'll react to 4e and whether the 4e design team will take out more fun than they put in, and that will depend on the implementation and the individual. [/QUOTE]

Verification