A difficult question

[Neonchameleon]

...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?

Do you have any idea quite how big it is?

In a normal class based game you pick a class, and that class defines you. It is who you are. It's your archetype and except under very rare circumstances you stick with it until you die. (4E has Paragon Multiclassing, AD&D has humans being weird).

A 3.X class is a point based package. You get one point to spend every time you level. Unlike other editions of D&D, 3.X is not a class based game. You don't see who you are and have an archetype that fits your class. You spend a point at every level on whatever class you like (with some restrictions).

This is a vast conceptual change. From a class based game to a point-buy one that uses classes as packages.

A second huge one is balance. Being a class based game, AD&D set out to and generally succeeded at making every class the best there was at what it did. (Sometimes that wasn't that useful). 4e did the same. 3.X failed - or didn't even try. I don't know. But it mostly failed because an archetype-based system can happily be front-loaded because big things define a class. If you're going for point-buy, you can't afford to do this as it makes some points too valuable.

So in 1,2, and 4e, the basic structure of what PCs are - what the race and class indicates - are the same. In 3.X it is conceptually very different.

 

[Steely_Dan]

Do you have any idea quite how big it is?

...what is?

 

[Neonchameleon]

...what is?

The difference between 3e multiclassing and the 3e class system than historical D&D. I thought I explained that.

Second big difference. 3e changed the relationship between the PCs and the rest of the world. 3e statted all NPCs out as if they were PCs. Previous editions used monster hit dice for almost all monsters, and the attack value based on their hit dice. 4e, like previous editions used the level and simply based the attack on that.

Again at a conceptual level the 4e rules are like the AD&D ones. And the 3e rules are very different.

The main difference is that 4e is a mostly narrativist or gamist RPG dressed in the clothes of an MMO and a boardgame - AD&D is a mostly narrativist or gamist (1e is far more gamist than 2e) RPG dressed in the clothes of a tabletop wargame.

3e is a point-buy simulationist RPG which keeps many of the clothes of older versions of AD&D.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

...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?

The change wasn't that it became a balance disaster, the change was that 3E multiclassing turned D&D into something that wasn't a class based system anymore, and instead a point buy system with choosing the class you gain a level in as the currency. That is a bigger fundamental change than anything 4E did.

 

[Obryn]

If I were unhappy with my current game, I'd be a lot more worried about Next.

Right now, either it wins me as a customer or it doesn't. I'm good either way. If it's a good game, it could get added to my game rotation. If it isn't, it won't.

So, given that, I hope it's good enough that lots of other people who are looking for new versions of D&D are happy with it. I hope it's good enough that I'll enjoy it if I play in a Next game. That's really about it.

ETA:

If this means I don't like it, I certainly don't plan to spend my time on messageboards explaining why it's not really an RPG but a tactical skirmish game/board game/video game/whatever other form of pejorative game!

Amen. Wish I could rep you.

-O

 

[Steely_Dan]

The change wasn't that it became a balance disaster, the change was that 3E multiclassing turned D&D into something that wasn't a class based system anymore, and instead a point buy system with choosing the class you gain a level in as the currency. That is a bigger fundamental change than anything 4E did.

...so, nothing, really?

 

[LostSoul]

...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?

Some of the big changes I can think of:

Skills
Feats
Monster classes
Take 20
Sunrods
Crafting magic items
Buying magic items (esp. wands of Cure Light Wounds)
Wandering monsters
The dungeon Turn
Reaction rolls
Evasion & pursuit
Henchmen
Morale
6-second combat rounds
Turn-based initiative
Full attacks
Sneak attack
Attacks of opportunity
Special attacks
Gaining new spells
Interrupting spellcasting
Metamagic
XP

Minor changes:

AC
HP
Spells
Saving throws

 

[Tony Vargas]

The change wasn't that it became a balance disaster, the change was that 3E multiclassing turned D&D into something that wasn't a class based system anymore, and instead a point buy system with choosing the class you gain a level in as the currency. That is a bigger fundamental change than anything 4E did.

I think that over-states the case almost as much as "powers are spells."

Sure, a given class/level became a sort of building block, but the class you took at first level still made a difference, and each class/level was a rather large package of powers, /and/ there were limits on just how much you could mix-n-match classes in any practical sense.

Yes, along with the uniform level advancement, 3e did move D&D closer to being a classless system (as did 4e, initially, with the greater scope of its common advancement scheme), but I don't see how it could be said to cross the line.

 

[pemerton]

Folks everybody knows that WOTC put D&D on the cover so I hope we are all clear what I mean by the above. I'm meaning that it was such a departure playstyle wise from previous editions that it no longer felt like the same game.

<snip>

To me, and it was a quote from me, 4e did not look at all like D&D.

3E doesn't really feel like D&D to me - it mixes "gritty" aspects of PC build (skill points) and action resolution (skill checks, disarm, trip, grapple) with the traditional gonzo elements of D&D (hp, spells, monsters etc). It's like someone looked at the unarmed combat rules in Gygax's DMG and thought they were a central part of the game rather than an optional periphary.

What does that tell you about 3E? Not much. It might tell you something about me - I'm a long-time Rolemaster player and GM, and have minimum standards for a "realistic" skill and manoeuvre system.

I guess my point is that while I don't doubt the authenticity of your experiences, I don't think they are especially or uniquely representative of the "D&D player" experience.

Maybe it will be easier to list the things that were common in earlier editions of D&D and ceased to exist in 4e at least at launch.

Others have responded to your list in depth. I'll pick up on just fourthings:

1. Base Attack Bonus that led into multiple attacks.

<snip>

8. The Great Wheel Cosmology
9. Nine Alignments.

<snip>

16. Every class didn't have "powers" and was not AEDU.

The change in fighter multiple attacks - making them just a part of a uniform attack progression - was a pretty big change from AD&D to 3E in my view.

And D&D didn't always have nine alignments - these were an early innovation, not uncontroversial, and the subject of much criticism from early on. Whereas early D&D is framed in terms of a cosmological conflict between Law and Chaos, later D&D presents the nine alignments as a universal scheme for classifying moral personalities. This latter idea is absurd, whereas Law vs Chaos can be a great cosmological theme (and 4e does a lot with it).

The Great Wheel cosmology is tied to 9 alignments. And even AD&D didn't use it uniformally. Oriental Adventures - my favourite AD&D book - used the Celestial Bureaucracy. Oriental Adventures also presented classes all of whom (except the barbarian, I think) got ki powers.

As I replied to you a week or so ago on another thread on this forum, 4e delivers, for me, the game that D&D has promised since the Foreword to Moldvay Basic, and that OA hitherto had got closest to. A game of heroic fantasy steeped in a world rich in thematically evocative fantasy tropes.

The fighter attacked multiple times in 1e/2e. He and his counterpart in 3e both got extra attacks. It wasn't identical but it had the same feel.

I guess some people think that same-y classes, with a uniform multiple attack progression, don't feel the same as a class-specific feature in AD&D!

I'd really love to see a courteous discuss that goes through step by step the differences between the editions

This post is an attempt, though I've followed Emerikol's lead in framing it somewhat autobiographically.

 

[Neonchameleon]

...so...so that's what you have...3rd Ed multi-classing;

So we have the entire class based system. I've also brought up the NPCs and how that changes the whole purpose of the rules and the relationship the PCs have to the world.

Now for a third. The saving throws - where 4e manages to be a fusion of AD&D and the vastly different 3e system.

In AD&D Saving Throws are precisely that. Saving - how to get out of things. The saving throw against a (non-crippling) spell cast by a caster is always the same whether it is Dominate, Glitterdust, Fireball, or Stinking Cloud - and it's a reflection about the PC's actions. Wizards get better saving throws against spells (and staffs - which are always a single point easier to save against) reflecting that they are wizards and have minor counterspells and protections. The spells the wizard has more trouble saving against are the poison/petrification/polymorph/paralysis/death - the instant effects that prevent them gasping out words and gesturing with minor magic. The difficulty is a consequence of the effect.

In 3e, "Saving Throws" are, in fact, defences. The simple question is "Is the spell powerful enough to crush the enemy's will or affect their body". One part of the skill of being a wizard is knowing to pick (and how to pick) the low save of the target and preparing a spread of spells for that purpose. So a well played conjurer will often pack Grease (reflex or even balance), Glitterdust (will), and Stinking Cloud (fort) - and the DC is a consequence of the caster.

The conceptual change from "Can they do something about the attack"? to "Is the attack strong enough to overwhelm the target"? is massive. And was just another part of the stealth buffing of 3e casters.

4e split the difference here. It kept 3e style defences and allowing the attacker control (this time with the right person rolling) but added back actual saving throws (although in a less sophisticated way than AD&D).

The more I think about how 3.X works the more it reminds me of GURPS. I'm not saying this is a bad thing - I've more books for GURPS than any other system. But Simulationist, Universal but with strong flavouring, detailed, point-buy, needs watching carefully. It's roughly the same assumptions. AD&D was gamist, playstyle-focussed, broad brush, and class based. And 4e is likewise.