For me the change to 4E was pretty big, other than sharing the old names and the dice you rolled many things changed. But going from THAC0 and other oddness when rolling a D20 to always add in the jump from 2E to 3E? That was pretty cosmetic to me.
D&D General D&D's Utter Dominance Is Good or Bad Because...
- Thread starter Reynard
- Start date
For me the change to 4E was pretty big, other than sharing the old names and the dice you rolled many things changed. But going from THAC0 and other oddness when rolling a D20 to always add in the jump from 2E to 3E? That was pretty cosmetic to me.
Imaro
Legend
Could you be more specific? 4e had classes... it had feats... it had class abilities... it had grided combat... it had monsters you fought for treasure... and all these things were in 3e. What were the big changes that took place?
I'm genuinely confused by this assertion if 2e to 3e is considered a minor change...
Thomas Shey
Legend
Would any position on this be? I have my doubts.
Thomas Shey
Legend
Yup. My own take is that the first time you even saw a core element get an actually meaningful change was D&D 4e--and its to be noted that to some degree they rolled the two present there (changing what a save meant and how magic was expressed) back to a large degree. And that was 4e, which probably could be more accurately described as the 5th Edition of the game, maybe the 6th, and occurred more than 30 years after its creation.
Thomas Shey
Legend
Like I said, the way saves were handled was changed radically, and in practice the magic system change fairly significantly. Those were pretty core elements that hadn't moved visibly in the prior 30+ years. But yes, levels, hit points, classes--all of that was still there and meant largely the same things, even if a few numbers changed.
The entire AEDU structure spread across all classes was radically different. Fighters did not function the same as they had at all. Casters no longer had spell books that set them apart from other classes. Conditions were constantly being applied by everyone, who rolled attacks and saves changed. It bore little resemblance to the previous edition for me other than using the same labels and the same dice. Whether it was intentional or not the games I played were far less "loose" and improvisational because the DMs were afraid to allow too much because there might be a specific power for what you were attempting. Skill challenges which, especially at first, were overused by many DMs.
I gave it the old college try and played it for the duration, but it felt like a different game.
Micah Sweet
Level Up & OSR Enthusiast
Are folks maybe only talking about character creation rules? All the examples seem to be in that area.
Thomas Shey
Legend
The working of saves and powers in 4e was not just in character creation (in fact the former didn't impact character creation at all). That said, hit points and to hit was still fundamentally the same, as was initiative.
In a lot of cases in games, what happens in character creation also has pretty strong ripple effects on the game as a whole.
Micah Sweet
Level Up & OSR Enthusiast
I find the GM side of the rules is deeply underserviced in these discussions.
Thomas Shey
Legend
Noted. But by the nature of the beast, people are going to note player-facing rules more, to the degree a game makes much distinction (I play more than one game where the distinction would be largely moot).
Similar Threads
- Locked
