basic differences in rules per edition

[Peraion Graufalke]

2E
- Wizards have 9 spell levels, clerics and druids have 7 spell levels
- Clerics can get quest spells (Tome of Magic), wizards can get 10th level spells and higher (certain Forgotten Realms supplements)
- When you take damage while casting, your spell fails automatically
- Wizards aren't allowed to wear armor (some exceptions for elf fighter-mages with elven chainmail)
- You need to roll for every spell you want to learn (except for read magic IIRC) and you have a maximum number of spells per spell level that you can learn
- Strict race and class limitations (e.g. no dwarven paladins), demihuman level limits (with lots of optional rules)
- Races have positive and negative ability mods, usually +1/-1 (Dark Sun is the big exception here)

3E
- Wizards, clerics and druids have 9 spell levels
- When you take damage while casting, you can make a concentration check so your spell won't fail
- Wizards who wear armor have a chance of spell failure
- No race and class limitations, no demihuman level limits
- Races have positive and negative ability mods, usually +2/-2

4E
- No traditional spell levels
- Casting spells can't be interrupted (in a previous editions sense of the word) unless you're knocked unconscious
- Wizards can wear pretty much any armor they want to without risking spell failure
- No need to roll if you want to learn a spell
- No race and class limitations, no demihuman level limits
- Races have positive ability mods (no penalties), usually +2

 

[ProfessorCirno]

You never used overruns or bull rushes or trips or grapples or disarms or just about any other weird-arsed maneuver as a fighter?

No, because most monsters don't have weapons to disarm, overrun and bullrush were useless, and everything is too big and has too many feet to grapple or trip (or disarm or overrun or bullrush either, since size matters). Of all the above only tripping can "work" and that's only if a wizard is giving you a thousand buffs, and even then you lose it once everything starts flying. There's a reason there's only the "fighter trip monkey" and not one built around any of the other maneuvers - at best, you've done relatively little, and at worst, you've just wasted your turn.

As for homogenous, it's like claiming that everything in 3e is the same since they all use d20 take highest - a complaint I did see when 3e first came out, since in 2e every damned thing had it's own mechanic.

So yeah, my 4e fighter throws foes around and grabs them and trips them and taunts them. My free hand fighter is basically a luchadore, it's awesome. 3e fighters? Charge and full attack.

What kills me is that 3e fighters were advertised as being made for new players, but they're so not the newbie class. They're the most complex because you can never change feats. Ok you have a complete newbie making a wizard and they chose a bunch of terrible spells. Next day, they change them. Meanwhile the newbie fighter has terrible feats and welp, that's it. That's your class ability. And you can never, ever change it.

 

[Aberzanzorax]

Originally Posted by E.Gary Gygax, Dragon #16"
"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.

Interesting quote from:

Looks like someone disagrees with you about balance.

It's sort of a differnt "kind" of balance though, isn't it?

 

[Raven Crowking]

Overwhelmingly, all editions have roughly the same amount of attention paid to combat vs non-combat.

This is objectively not true.

The easy example comes from 2e, where there is a Complete book for every class, and those books contain far, far more non-combat than combat material overall. The overall thrust in 2e was on creating characters that could be useful within a fantasy world, not creating combatants.

Closer examination of any earlier edition will also show the problems here. The 1e PHB gives more data on successful exploration than it does combat, and that edition also gives as much information about cavern environments, wilderness/weather, etc.

It is quite possible to look at page counts over the course of an edition, or the focus on character builds (1e thief, anyone? 2e pacifist priest, anyone?) to put the lie to this assertion.


RC

 

[Bluenose]

It's sort of a differnt "kind" of balance though, isn't it?

Would you like to try writing that while quoting both of the paragraphs I quoted?

 

[ExploderWizard]

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

Yes, and everyone has a "spellbook" to manage whether they want one or not.

 

[Aberzanzorax]

Would you like to try writing that while quoting both of the paragraphs I quoted?

Sure

Originally Posted by E.Gary Gygax, Dragon #16"
"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.

You are right, of course. Prior editions did have concessions to overall balance.

But here I also emphasized the relevant points in the first paragraph to show that another kind of balance was in play. Balance by being unique, across entire adventures or campaigns, rather than power level in combat.

So, at least two kinds of balance were present, but I'd contend that the kind of balance that was the primary focus of earlier editions (earlier than 3e) was not combat potenial balance across all classes.


So, as I said, balance was present, but it was a very different kind of balance, as a whole, than is present in 3e and 4e.

 

[Bluenose]

You are right, of course. Prior editions did have concessions to overall balance.

But here I also emphasized the relevant points in the first paragraph to show that another kind of balance was in play. Balance by being unique, across entire adventures or campaigns, rather than power level in combat.

So, at least two kinds of balance were present, but I'd contend that the kind of balance that was the primary focus of earlier editions (earlier than 3e) was not combat potenial balance across all classes.


So, as I said, balance was present, but it was a very different kind of balance, as a whole, than is present in 3e and 4e.

If it's solely about being unique, about 'niche protection', then there doesn't seem to be much point limiting level advancement for single-class demi-human. They're not, after all, filling more niches than a human with the same class. It's also possible to argue that allowing any sort of multi-classing breaks that same unique niche that single-classed characters live in. While niche protection is certainly part of what is being talked about, it's quie clear that so are power levels.

 

[Raven Crowking]

If it's solely about being unique, about 'niche protection', then there doesn't seem to be much point limiting level advancement for single-class demi-human.

Sure there is. Read the 1e DMG. The purpose is to protect the niche of humans in a human-centric campaign milieu.

(Whether or not this succeeds is, of course, open to debate, but Gygax was very clear about his reasoning, IMHO.)



RC

 

[Bluenose]

Sure there is. Read the 1e DMG. The purpose is to protect the niche of humans in a human-centric campaign milieu.

(Whether or not this succeeds is, of course, open to debate, but Gygax was very clear about his reasoning, IMHO.)


RC

But that of course implies that there's one type of setting which is appropriate for D&D, that it has to be human-centric. And that the only way for it to be human-centric is for individual humans to be more powerful than individual demi-humans can be. Which disregards the potential for a campaign to be human-centric because humans are numerous and widespread. The logic is not exactly compelling for exceptional individuals to be limited in the level thay can attain. I suspect that many rejection of these level limits was one of the commonest house-rules in 1e/2e days; it certainly gets mentioned frequently.