basic differences in rules per edition

[Thunderfoot]

<SNIP>
So, from my PoV, 2e wasn't balanced in the first place, making analyzing class power rather difficult.

This - balance was NEVER an issue prior to 3e. It was understood that at low levels brawn beat brain - but after about level 7 fighter go poof when mage casts spell.

Power came at the cost of staying alive long enough to wield it. It's a personal pet peeve, but the outcry for balance is what makes 4e unplayable for me. It feels like my niche game was re-written by Political Correctness police. "Now class lets all take out a sheet of paper and draw a straight line - Yay! you all get A+s today..." - Yeesh Oversimplified yes, but to explain further would take too long, and its way too late for that.

BTW this doesn't mean those that like 3.x/4e are wrong, and that I'm right, its just my take on things. There is no wrongbadfun, unless you try to force it on someone else.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

What all two minutes of roleplaying and the rest grinding through the encounter? [I had to read through twice to work out which direction you were coming from.]
I think the thing to note here is that a group will roleplay/do-out-of-combat-stuff as much or as little as they want regardless of edition. To say that one edition was better or worse at it than any other without also referencing the group, the campaign/module or the situation seems a little silly.
I think it is well accepted that 4e spends most of its pages describing combat-related information, which is similar to a slightly greater or lesser extent for all versions of D&D.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

Overwhelmingly, all editions have roughly the same amount of attention paid to combat vs non-combat. The big difference is this: 4e has the Wall of Powers, 3e had the Wall of Spells.

The difference there: Everyone gets to use 4e's wall ;p

 

[Aldarc]

This - balance was NEVER an issue prior to 3e. It was understood that at low levels brawn beat brain - but after about level 7 fighter go poof when mage casts spell.

Power came at the cost of staying alive long enough to wield it. It's a personal pet peeve, but the outcry for balance is what makes 4e unplayable for me. It feels like my niche game was re-written by Political Correctness police. "Now class lets all take out a sheet of paper and draw a straight line - Yay! you all get A+s today..." - Yeesh Oversimplified yes, but to explain further would take too long, and its way too late for that.

Would I be wrong to assume that you played "wizardy" classes? But if by "Political Correctness police," you mean "I want to have a comparatively equal level of fun throughout all levels regardless of the class I chose" then yes.

 

[shadzar]

Overwhelmingly, all editions have roughly the same amount of attention paid to combat vs non-combat. The big difference is this: 4e has the Wall of Powers, 3e had the Wall of Spells.

The difference there: Everyone gets to use 4e's wall ;p

Said another way: Everyone has to use 4e's wall

 

[Lanefan]

This - balance was NEVER an issue prior to 3e. It was understood that at low levels brawn beat brain - but after about level 7 fighter go poof when mage casts spell.

A sort-of corollary to this is that in 1e-2e it is pretty much understood that some classes are not going to be suited for some adventures and are going to steal the show in others.

Examples include an Illusionist in a dungeon where most of the opponents are undead (useless), the same Illusionist in a dungeon where most of the opponents are dumb Ogres (most valuable character in the party), a Druid in an underground adventure vs. a forest adventure, etc.

Another very large difference is that 1e was designed for an average party size of 6-8, 3e for a party of 4, and 4e for a party of 5. The big advantage of a larger party is that some of the more specialized classes get to see the light of day now and then...

Lanefan

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Said another way: Everyone has to use 4e's wall

Oh no now everyone has options and abilities beyond "Charge and full attack"

 

[Aldarc]

Said another way: Everyone has to use 4e's wall

Which are spread across the multiple classes as opposed to all being in the hands of the few.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

Oh no now everyone has options and abilities beyond "Charge and full attack"

You never used overruns or bull rushes or trips or grapples or disarms or just about any other weird-arsed maneuver as a fighter? I had fun playing fighters as well as wizards and celebrated their differences. It was nice to have the choice. It was one of the first things I had to get over when I first played 4e: that rather than different classes, you had homogenous lumps of approximately equal measure. It took a long time to "get" what they were trying to do and even then, I have never been the biggest fan of role>class>=powers>skills>feats. Perhaps with 4.E, the developers have learned the "error" of their ways or perhaps not. As a player, I have found it more fun to identify with a particular class rather than as a role (although leaders of the warlord variety are fun). And that's it, different versions of the game are fun for some and more deeply satisfying or not for others.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Bluenose]

This - balance was NEVER an issue prior to 3e. It was understood that at low levels brawn beat brain - but after about level 7 fighter go poof when mage casts spell.

Power came at the cost of staying alive long enough to wield it. It's a personal pet peeve, but the outcry for balance is what makes 4e unplayable for me. It feels like my niche game was re-written by Political Correctness police. "Now class lets all take out a sheet of paper and draw a straight line - Yay! you all get A+s today..." - Yeesh Oversimplified yes, but to explain further would take too long, and its way too late for that.

BTW this doesn't mean those that like 3.x/4e are wrong, and that I'm right, its just my take on things. There is no wrongbadfun, unless you try to force it on someone else.

"Why can't magic-users employ swords? And for that matter, why not allow fighters to use wands and similar magical devices? On the surface this seems a small concession, but in actuallity it would spoil the game! Each character role has been designed with care in order to provide varied and unique approaches to solving problems which confront the players. If characters are not kept distinct, they will soon merge into one super-character.
"Similarly, multi-classed character types such as elves and dwarves are limited in most class progressions in order to assure game balance. That this can be justified by [in-]game logic, pointing out that humankind triumphs and rules other life forms in most if not all myths and mythos is a pleasant superfluity.

Looks like someone disagrees with you about balance. I guess balance might have occasionally been a consideration before 3e after all.

 

[Dice4Hire]

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