Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 5960898" data-attributes="member: 22779">I look at it like this.Take someone who has only played AD&amp;D and sit them down and give them a 3e character sheet for a 6th level Barbarian.&nbsp; Would they be able to play?&nbsp; Not really.&nbsp; Every single element on that character sheet is different.&nbsp; The meaning of the stats are completely different, skills are completely different, AC, saving throws, abilities, etc.&nbsp; Every single element on that character sheet is different.&nbsp; The second combat starts, every element is also different - initiative, attacks (what's an iterative attack?&nbsp; How do you disarm?&nbsp; etc).&nbsp; Heck, even the time scale and all effect scales are completely different.Now, take a 3e player and give him a 4e character sheet, of, again, a 6th level barbarian.&nbsp; Could he play?&nbsp; I think so.&nbsp; Stats are the same.&nbsp; Skills are determined the same, although the list is a bit different.&nbsp; Combat works almost exactly the same.&nbsp; While Vancian casters are gone, anyone who has played a Vancian caster will pretty much instantly recognize how AEDU works.&nbsp; Gridded combat?&nbsp; Not a problem, been doing that for years.&nbsp; Are there differences?&nbsp; Of course.&nbsp; They are different editions.&nbsp; But, it's disingenuous to claim that 3e is closer to 2e than 4e mechanically.&nbsp; 3e shares virtually no mechanics with 2e while 4e's mechanics are pretty close.&nbsp; Even encounter design isn't all that different.&nbsp; CR and EL vs encounter budget is not a huge jump./edit [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]&nbsp; You mentioned sliding DC's.&nbsp; There's two points here.&nbsp; One, the simple existence of DC's in the first place puts 3e and 4e in the same camp - AD&amp;D didn't have DC's at all - any non-weapon proficiency check was based solely on the character's applicable stat.&nbsp; Two, 3e did have sliding DC's based on PC level, although they didn't call them out explicitly.&nbsp; If you don't think so, I would point to pretty much every single module out there.&nbsp; Look at the DC's - they scale by the level that the module is meant for.&nbsp; AD&amp;D again, didn't do this at all.&nbsp; When your thief raised his Open Locks skill, all locks (with some exceptions) became easier.&nbsp; There might have been some specific locks that would up the difficulty (typically with some -X% penalty for success for this or that reason) but, by and large, the difficulty of all locks depended solely on the thief's Open Locks skill.3e was a massive overhaul of the AD&amp;D system.&nbsp; Very, very few mechanics managed to survive the transition and virtually none managed untouched.&nbsp; Going from 3e to 4e, most of the base mechanics are exactly the same.&nbsp; Stat meanings, D20 roll high, etc, etc.&nbsp; There are some obvious differences, of course - healing being a big example, but, even there, that's different from 3e to 2e.&nbsp; In 2e, you got Cure Light Wounds as a 1st level spell (1d8 HP) and Cure Serious at 4th.&nbsp; In 3e, you could convert all cleric spells to healing and it scaled by the level of the caster (with limits).&nbsp; Never mind the crafting rules changes.I'll put it this way.&nbsp; Why do you think there's an entire board of Grognards that, to this day, refuses to accept 3e as even a version of D&amp;D?&nbsp; It's not because of all those similarities that BRG is trying to put forward.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 5960898, member: 22779"] I look at it like this. Take someone who has only played AD&D and sit them down and give them a 3e character sheet for a 6th level Barbarian. Would they be able to play? Not really. Every single element on that character sheet is different. The meaning of the stats are completely different, skills are completely different, AC, saving throws, abilities, etc. Every single element on that character sheet is different. The second combat starts, every element is also different - initiative, attacks (what's an iterative attack? How do you disarm? etc). Heck, even the time scale and all effect scales are completely different. Now, take a 3e player and give him a 4e character sheet, of, again, a 6th level barbarian. Could he play? I think so. Stats are the same. Skills are determined the same, although the list is a bit different. Combat works almost exactly the same. While Vancian casters are gone, anyone who has played a Vancian caster will pretty much instantly recognize how AEDU works. Gridded combat? Not a problem, been doing that for years. Are there differences? Of course. They are different editions. But, it's disingenuous to claim that 3e is closer to 2e than 4e mechanically. 3e shares virtually no mechanics with 2e while 4e's mechanics are pretty close. Even encounter design isn't all that different. CR and EL vs encounter budget is not a huge jump. /edit [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] You mentioned sliding DC's. There's two points here. One, the simple existence of DC's in the first place puts 3e and 4e in the same camp - AD&D didn't have DC's at all - any non-weapon proficiency check was based solely on the character's applicable stat. Two, 3e did have sliding DC's based on PC level, although they didn't call them out explicitly. If you don't think so, I would point to pretty much every single module out there. Look at the DC's - they scale by the level that the module is meant for. AD&D again, didn't do this at all. When your thief raised his Open Locks skill, all locks (with some exceptions) became easier. There might have been some specific locks that would up the difficulty (typically with some -X% penalty for success for this or that reason) but, by and large, the difficulty of all locks depended solely on the thief's Open Locks skill. 3e was a massive overhaul of the AD&D system. Very, very few mechanics managed to survive the transition and virtually none managed untouched. Going from 3e to 4e, most of the base mechanics are exactly the same. Stat meanings, D20 roll high, etc, etc. There are some obvious differences, of course - healing being a big example, but, even there, that's different from 3e to 2e. In 2e, you got Cure Light Wounds as a 1st level spell (1d8 HP) and Cure Serious at 4th. In 3e, you could convert all cleric spells to healing and it scaled by the level of the caster (with limits). Never mind the crafting rules changes. I'll put it this way. Why do you think there's an entire board of Grognards that, to this day, refuses to accept 3e as even a version of D&D? It's not because of all those similarities that BRG is trying to put forward. [/QUOTE]

Verification