basic differences in rules per edition

[Crazy Jerome]

But frame this as a 4th-5th level party that is somehow sneaking around in the basement and my statement still holds true. In any edition.

Lanefan

From about character levels 4 to 7 (or sometimes 5-9 depending on the kind of story being told), I have very little preference on editions. Sure, there are particular things that I might prefer in one edition or another, but if it is a proposed game where I get to play and someone has this idea they want to run with: Go with what floats your boat, and I'll probably have a great time. Basic, RC, 1E, 2E, 3E, or 4E. I'm there.

Get outside that range, and my answer will change.

 

[Aldarc]

If your party is that kind of level to be chucking 6th-level spells around you're more likely to be nuking the house from orbit anyway, in which case yes; the fighter's role would be reduced to making sure nobody escapes down the street.

But frame this as a 4th-5th level party that is somehow sneaking around in the basement and my statement still holds true. In any edition.

Lanefan

I'm not familiar with any buffs a 4th-5th level wizard could use on a fighter that would allow the fighter to bring down the house either.

 

[Beginning of the End]

More specifically, when a wizard casts enlarge person on the fighter and the fighter goes on a rampage while singing "Tip Toe Through the Tulips" before swatting out the rotting beams above their head and causing the enemies on the floor above to fall down in a cascade of broken timber (to pick one example from actual play) I don't think any reasonable person would say, "I'm not actually having fun because I was only able to do this because the wizard cast a spell on me."

Plus, I'm still not seeing your fighter do things there.

If no reasonable person would say, "I'm not actually having fun because I was only able to do this because the wizard cast a spell on me." Then what type of person would it require, do you think, to say, "I'm not actually the one going on a rampage or knocking down support beams because the wizard cast a spell on me."?

I find the entire construct of this hypothetical game in which everyone plays solo, the fighters refuse to use magical items, the clerics refuse to buff the other party members, the wizards can throw an unlimited number of spells at every single encounter, and nobody takes any joy in the group's accomplishments because they didn't do solo it 100% for themselves to be utterly absurd.

Yes, if you choose to play that way then the game has a few issues. But it's so utterly trivial to not play that way, it's like complaining that Monopoly sucks if you start by setting the board on fire. Sure, it's true. But it's also irrelevant.

 

[Raven Crowking]

And the 4e rogue - and the fighter and the paladin and the ranger and etc etc - all have more out of combat things to do then they did in previous editions!

I take it you are referencing rituals here? Because, otherwise, I fail to see how any list of abilities can exceed "whatever you can think of"!

But when you look at the core rules - you know, what we're talking about? - you find that all editions have an emphasis on two things: combat and spells. 4e just made the second part applicable to everyone.

Oh boy one of these threads! Let me get out my Bingo sheet.

If you look at the core rules for each edition, you will notice that there is not an equal amount of space dedicated to combat. Even if you include the space included for combat spells.

Again, an obvious example comes from the 1e PHB, where more space is devoted to exploring various adventure settings than to combat, where classes are included that are not combat focused, where advice is given to avoid combat, and where the primary reward does not come from combat.

But, hey, you can believe whatever you like.

It amazes me how many of the same folks believe (1) all editions are combat focused while also believing (2) that the game includes too many "builds" that are essentially useless in combat!




RC


EDIT: I notice from your later post that you think you know what you are talking about because you played 2e, 3e, and 4e. And that people who don't play 4e simply don't know what they are talking about. On what basis, then, can you make any claim about editions prior to 2e? Simply put, if you apply your standards to your own posts, it quickly becomes apparent that we should not accept that you have the authority to make any claim about any other edition. Right?

 

[ExploderWizard]

Oh wow. My whirlwind romance with D&D is over. I have been having fun playing fighters for 30 years and now I come to find out that I was never able to actually do anything.

If you see your character sheet as a hotbar then any class will run out of interesting things to do eventually.

The character sheet represents your mechanical representation in the game world, not what you are able to do as a player. If you view a piece of paper as a definition of what you can do then not being able to do much isn't such a suprise.

 

[Reynard]

They were all different games designed with different goals. People will gravitate to the ones with goals that are more or less in line with their own.

Knowing the nuts and bolts of the differences won't change preferences.

Which is why there should be more than one currently supported version.

 

[Neonchameleon]

4e: coming back from the dead is automatic (I think) and costs ... what, other than some money*?

A debuff for a while. But point generally accurate.

A noticeable change for me from 3e to 4e was the feel that a computer could "run" the encounter. All game effects are specifically defined so as a computer could judge exactly what would happen.

Really? I find the monsters require far more intelligence to manage things like marks and defender auras than they ever did in 3e. And that's supported by the way that there are published computer games for every recent edition of D&D except fourth.

You missed what is probably the biggest defining "difference" moments in D&D - what set 2e, 3e, and 4e all down the path they're on now. Someone else mentioned it, but it's worth examining further.

"Gold no longer gives 3x experience."

Boom. Suddenly the game isn't about collecting or stealing loot and gold. Wanna know where the whole "D&D is only about combat" thing got started? It wasn't 4e. It was here.

Absolutely!

And thus the fact that I ran a 4 hour session with one encounter in 4E makes sense, everything else was roleplaying.

I'll see you that and raise you two successive four hour sessions with an encounter between them And IMO the best parts of 3e and 1e on the character sheet to support this.

This - balance was NEVER an issue prior to 3e.

Balderdash! I've heard very experienced DMs complaining that they could either challenge the min-maxer or the rest of the party in 2e games.

One of the things I love about 4E is how seldom the party looks to the wizard and cleric expecting them to solve all their problems. It happened far too much in 3.x

Yup! Where a choice you have is the choice whether to use an "I Win" button, it makes all other choices meaningless.

Well, and here is an interesting thing often overlooked about older editions. Just because there weren't rules for some combat manuver did not mean it didn't happen.

Indeed. It happened despite the rules rather than supported by them. It was clunky, messy, and different at different tables. But it happened. This is not to the credit of the system.

In which case then, either you weren't trying very hard as a player (utilizing your own magic where necessary - and not needing a thousand wizard buffs either) or your DM was giving no consideration to what your character-build was trying to do. I found this type of fighter a lot of fun to play. YMOV.

Some did. The thing is that the druid's animal companion could have replaced the fighter (if you somehow made it humanoid) and contributed the same things to the party.

Initially for me, it went way beyond roll a d20 and roll high. I'm talking about every class using the same at will/encounter/daily mechanic;

Now gone.

everyone who gets "poisoned" has the same chance of recovering from it regardless of anything (level, con, expertise etc.),

Depends on the poison. And the build. Most combat poisons need to overcome the fortitude defence - meaning that they have a much harder time affecting wizards than fighters. And the barbarian in my current campaign has 5 points of poison resistance due to a feat. It's not often useful but has really saved her neck from spiderlings.

all the different character's fort/reflex/will were basically the same three numbers shifted around depending upon not very much.

You mean they had similar numbers?

They were a generic character first,

A humanoid.

playing a role second and then third was their class which determined the particular flavour of their role.

A throwback to the 2e structure and subclasses. Hell, it was fighter/cleric/rogue/wizard there.

I will second that. I'm looking at my AD&D Monstrous Manual at the moment. Each page is completely dedicated to an individual monster. Just under 1/2 of the top of each page includes a stat block and a picture (both taking up the same amount of space). Every monster has a section on Habitat / Society and Ecology which takes up roughly 1/2 of the text area on the page. Combat is about 1/4 of that text area and the remaining quarter is descriptive text that includes what amount to roleplaying tips and physical descriptions.

Open any 3e monster manual and you're lucky to see a paragraph on physical description along with maybe very brief notes about the creature outside of combat. The biggest section is the "Combat" section and for many monster, the stat blocks are much larger than the flavor text.

The weird ones are the 4e monster manuals - largely statblock, but the statblock is far more evocative than the 3e one. It might not tell me about the monster's lair and habitat - but that's gameworld specific anyway. But what it tells me is how the monsters organise themselves, how they move, and how they think. With the light fluff text giving me the monster's common motivations and the picture being worth a thousand words on appearance. Completely different from the 2e ones and much more of an acquired taste.

That's like claiming that receivers suck because they need the quarterback to throw them the ball. Or that pair skaters suck because they need a partner in order to compete.

No. It's closer to the magician's assistant and the magician - or at least the relationship displayed on stage. The magician does the whole thing and the assistant is there to make the magician look good - but could be trivially replaced by another assistant or even a trained magician. Whereas the magician could only be replaced by another magician.

 

[Beginning of the End]

And that's supported by the way that there are published computer games for every recent edition of D&D except fourth.

Not really. The lack of recent D&D CRPGs has more to do with poor licensing decisions by Hasbro. And at least one game based on 4th Edition's mechanics is scheduled for release this year.

I'm not necessarily agreeing with the other guy, but that's a pretty poor excuse for "logic" that you're using there.

 

[Janx]

Oh wow. My whirlwind romance with D&D is over. I have been having fun playing fighters for 30 years and now I come to find out that I was never able to actually do anything.

If you see your character sheet as a hotbar then any class will run out of interesting things to do eventually.

The character sheet represents your mechanical representation in the game world, not what you are able to do as a player. If you view a piece of paper as a definition of what you can do then not being able to do much isn't such a suprise.

I can buy that. With the 2e fighter (sorry, it's when I started), I could play any manner of guy who fights from barbarians, knights, archers, etc.

I suppose some of that was defined by what meager gear he had (leather armor vs plate) or if he had a bow or a really big sword.

But in the end, it's all how I chose to play him. Different from the last fighter I made.

Granted, I like 3e's treatment of fighters (more attacks, feats to support the theme I had planned for the PC). It looked like a good idea to me, and it worked out fine.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Oh hey we're back on the argument of "No see I just ignore the rules and play freeform!"

That can be a lot of fun but you aren't really playing the game at that point.