Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="GreyLord" data-source="post: 6142204" data-attributes="member: 4348">I agree.  One of the biggest flaws in a lot of people who argue against 4e is saying it is a totally different game than 3.5, which is not exactly true.  4e is basically a 3e/d20 game with a bunch of powers tossed in and a simplified skill system.  The basic core of 4e is just about exactly the same as the rest of the D20 games.The biggest wonkiness of 4e was that the way it was presented was with powers that were not optional.  Hence, you had a fighter like 3.5, but now he had all these other options/powers which he could use as desired, per encounter, or daily.  In XP and heart before they got the hybrid rules and crazy races of the PHB3 however, 4e probably had more of the spirit of AD&D than 3e with multiclass being something that you paid for (aka, in older editions you paid for it with limited advancements or max levels, in 4e you had to trade off feats and such), and more in line with classes being classes instead of skill sets.4e's other major differential was while it still had the same core as 3e (whereas 3e tossed out the core of D&D previous in that it tossed out the entire way Combat really worked prior to that...which for some was a great thing with ascending numbers all over the place instead of some going up and some going down) was how they switched up saves to operates similarly, but based partly on level and as defenses, as well as taking a different approach to HP which was originally introduced in a very similar idea with the D20 Star Wars (though still, slightly different than SWRPG).I could go on for quite a bit, but in the end, the mechanics of 4e are basically a deriviative of 3e and much more compatible.  I actually submitted paperwork and ideas on how to play 4e just like 3e, keeping the main system but abandoning the powers idea...the response that I got back was...if you want to play 4e like 3e...just go play 3e.  However, it was close enough that it really didn't need much more than a transition book and you were playing the 4e system but it ran like 3e.  It abandoned the power system, but buffed up the feats as 3e instead.The differences between 2e and 3e are extremely vast, in fact the differences between 1e and 3e are extremely vast.  The entire approach was different.  I actually find more similarities between PF (which is basically 3e evolved) and 1e as far as the heart and intent than 3e and any of the previous editions of D&D.That said, I don't think 3e is a bad system at all like some here are incriminating, just a different system with different goals and ideas than what D&D or AD&D had before.  I think that same application could be said of 4e, where even if mechanically it was very similar to 3e, the goals and intent of 4e were as vast, if not more vast than the differences of goals between 3e and previous editions of AD&D.IMO of course.</blockquote>

Verification