Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Lizard" data-source="post: 4066541" data-attributes="member: 1054">I really do wish people would read posts before replying to them.I was noting specific 3e-isms gone in response to a post by someone who claimed the rogue still had too many 3e holdovers. I also noted that there's a point at which things change so much that one can't arguably claim it's the same game. Often, this point is time-dependant; if D&D 3e had appeared in 1978 after the 'brown box', it would be pretty easy to argue it was an entirely new game -- indeed, EGG argued that AD&D 1e was just that vs. D&D. But changing things over time leads to continuity. (Another thread) My point, to be extra-special-super-clear, was NOT that 4e had mutated to the extent it was a new game, but that those claiming that it still had too many 'holdovers' seemed to be hoping that it WOULD.My point: Many, many,3e-isms are gone, and those that remain are either core to the D&D concept (race/class/level/hit points) or have shown themselves to be too successful/popular to merit extreme change. Which is, uhm, EXACTLY the propaganda line 4e apologists have been making right up until we actually started seeing the crunch, so why be upset that I'm agreeing with them? Isn't "Fix what's broken, preserve what works" the guiding design philosophy for ANY (good) upgrade?So let me refocus yet again:What about the rogue preview indicates a 3e holdover which cannot be justified on any basis but nostalgia or sacred-cow-ness? IOW, what's there which keeps 4e from being as much of an improvement over 3e as it theoretically could/should be?</blockquote>

Verification