Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 6289427" data-attributes="member: 87792">From mine calling 3E a simple extension of AD&amp;D is risible.&nbsp; It was a ground up rewrite as a retroclone by people who did not understand why the parts of AD&amp;D that worked worked.&nbsp; It's simpler to design a system where NPCs and PCs use the same rules - just as it's simpler to design a system with uniform stat bonusses, and it's simpler to design a system where there is uniform level progression rather than shifting into an endgame. It's certainly simpler to design a system where there are fewer restrictions on the wizard, and one in which the fighter doesn't get an army at level 10.&nbsp; 3.0 wasn't just an extension of 2E - it was also a reduction of AD&amp;D in places such as removing almost all the balance mechanics.3.0 was a from the ground up re-write of D&amp;D focussing on making the rules look like a streamlined version of AD&amp;D's, irrespective of how they worked in actual play or the purpose of the clunky looking rules (mostly balance mechanics).&nbsp; 4E is a d20 game written mostly from the ground up focussing on making the game play the way the fluff said it should.&nbsp; Both 3.X and 4E are every bit as much D&amp;D as oD&amp;D, B/X, BECMI, Rules Cyclopaedia, 1e, or 2e.&nbsp; But both of them are outliers in a lot of places (and in other places agree with each other but not with previous versions).&nbsp; However in places where they disagree with all other editions you can not claim that that's how D&amp;D works without qualifications.&nbsp; And calling 3.5 the most extreme form of everything D&amp;D had ever been is simply flat out wrong.&nbsp; Go to Dragonsfoot and make a claim like that and you will be laughed off the forum.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Neonchameleon, post: 6289427, member: 87792"] From mine calling 3E a simple extension of AD&D is risible. It was a ground up rewrite as a retroclone by people who did not understand why the parts of AD&D that worked worked. It's simpler to design a system where NPCs and PCs use the same rules - just as it's simpler to design a system with uniform stat bonusses, and it's simpler to design a system where there is uniform level progression rather than shifting into an endgame. It's [I]certainly[/I] simpler to design a system where there are fewer restrictions on the wizard, and one in which the fighter doesn't get an army at level 10. 3.0 wasn't [I]just[/I] an extension of 2E - it was also a reduction of AD&D in places such as removing almost all the balance mechanics. 3.0 was a from the ground up re-write of D&D focussing on making the rules look like a streamlined version of AD&D's, irrespective of how they worked in actual play or the purpose of the clunky looking rules (mostly balance mechanics). 4E is a d20 game written mostly from the ground up focussing on making the game play the way the fluff said it should. Both 3.X and 4E are every bit as much D&D as oD&D, B/X, BECMI, Rules Cyclopaedia, 1e, or 2e. But both of them are outliers in a lot of places (and in other places agree with each other but not with previous versions). However in places where they disagree with all other editions you can not claim that that's how D&D works without qualifications. And calling 3.5 the most extreme form of everything D&D had ever been is simply flat out wrong. Go to Dragonsfoot and make a claim like that and you will be laughed off the forum. [/QUOTE]

Verification