Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Jer" data-source="post: 3764410" data-attributes="member: 19857">Actually, I want to take issue with this statement.&nbsp; A LOT of 3e was just a &quot;straight port&quot; from 2e - they worked pretty hard to keep spells at the same level (even when they should have been re-levelled), to keep monsters pretty much the same as they were in 2e (even when they should have been completely re-built), and to keep magic items working pretty much the same as they worked in 2e (even when they should have been re-designed).&nbsp; This made &quot;porting&quot; from 2e -&gt; 3e seem pretty easy, because your Nth level Fighter's gear could be mostly the same, your Nth level Wizard's spells could be mostly the same, and the monsters that a DM had to use in an adventure were mostly the same - you just had to get used to the fact that their abilities worked differently, but you knew what abilities those monsters had.The 3.5 revision seemed to be an attempt to clean up some of the inconsistencies that cropped out of the &quot;straight port&quot; bit of the edition change.&nbsp; Nothing fundamental to the game changed from 3.0 -&gt; 3.5, but some things that didn't work got fixed, some things got clarified, and some new systems were introduced to try to compensate for the fact that the 2e -&gt; 3e conversion of some things didn't work out quite the way it was thought that they would.&nbsp; The most glaring example of the latter is the change in how magic weapons worked on monsters - 3e used the 2e system of having monsters immune to weapons below a certain &quot;plus&quot; - but higher plusses on weapons are less useful in 3e than they were in 2e because of the underlying math - so they tried to change it and gave us the &quot;materials&quot; vulnerability that we all know and love (or loathe).I think that this is true, to a degree, which is why I'm not so worried about playtesting either.&nbsp; They've been using 'per encounter' mechanics in Star Wars Saga, in Tome of Battle, for the warlock class, for the binder class from Tome of Magic, and for the &quot;reserve feat&quot; mechanism from the most recent Complete books.&nbsp; Each of these pieces will contribute to to edition change.&nbsp; Likewise monsters - it's pretty clear that Monster Manual V was the testbed for their new monster design philosophy, and that seems like a solid product.It really does sound like 4e is going to be more evolutionary than revolutionary.&nbsp; The things that they're talking about incorporating into the new game are things that they've been putting in 3e for a while now.&nbsp; It may look like a vast sweeping change, and it's certainly in Wizards best interest to make it seem like a vast sweeping change, but from everything they've actually released so far it sounds like its been clearly built on the backs of everything that has gone before.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Jer, post: 3764410, member: 19857"] Actually, I want to take issue with this statement. A LOT of 3e was just a "straight port" from 2e - they worked pretty hard to keep spells at the same level (even when they should have been re-levelled), to keep monsters pretty much the same as they were in 2e (even when they should have been completely re-built), and to keep magic items working pretty much the same as they worked in 2e (even when they should have been re-designed). This made "porting" from 2e -> 3e seem pretty easy, because your Nth level Fighter's gear could be mostly the same, your Nth level Wizard's spells could be mostly the same, and the monsters that a DM had to use in an adventure were mostly the same - you just had to get used to the fact that their abilities worked differently, but you knew what abilities those monsters had. The 3.5 revision seemed to be an attempt to clean up some of the inconsistencies that cropped out of the "straight port" bit of the edition change. Nothing fundamental to the game changed from 3.0 -> 3.5, but some things that didn't work got fixed, some things got clarified, and some new systems were introduced to try to compensate for the fact that the 2e -> 3e conversion of some things didn't work out quite the way it was thought that they would. The most glaring example of the latter is the change in how magic weapons worked on monsters - 3e used the 2e system of having monsters immune to weapons below a certain "plus" - but higher plusses on weapons are less useful in 3e than they were in 2e because of the underlying math - so they tried to change it and gave us the "materials" vulnerability that we all know and love (or loathe). I think that this is true, to a degree, which is why I'm not so worried about playtesting either. They've been using 'per encounter' mechanics in Star Wars Saga, in Tome of Battle, for the warlock class, for the binder class from Tome of Magic, and for the "reserve feat" mechanism from the most recent Complete books. Each of these pieces will contribute to to edition change. Likewise monsters - it's pretty clear that Monster Manual V was the testbed for their new monster design philosophy, and that seems like a solid product. It really does sound like 4e is going to be more evolutionary than revolutionary. The things that they're talking about incorporating into the new game are things that they've been putting in 3e for a while now. It may look like a vast sweeping change, and it's certainly in Wizards best interest to make it seem like a vast sweeping change, but from everything they've actually released so far it sounds like its been clearly built on the backs of everything that has gone before. [/QUOTE]

Verification