D&D 4E Do there need to be a "lot" of changes to be 4E?

[Emirikol]

Our grou was discussing this last night. Do there need to be a "lot" of changes to justify 4E? I mean, why bother to do a new edition if it's just a new rules compilation? Are you guys getting the feeling that there are enough "good" changes occurring to justify it beyond simple good business sense on the part of the company?

Personally, I'm jazzed about the new edition. I can't wait to start a new world and get "that feeling" again of starting anew.

Jh

 

[Black Knight Irios]

Looking at 3.5 as it is now, it seems like implementing the 4E rules/mechanics/etc. would be a lot of work. And all the old books would still need an update. Why not switch to a new edition and make the cut clear.

Would the books cost less if there was written 3.5 on them instead of 4E - my guess no.

Give me a new edition and I'll be happy - a new edition that feels as good as the 4E announcements so far!

 

[Wolfspider]

Give me a new edition and I'll be happy - a new edition that feels as good as the 4E announcements so far!

*cues inspirational music*

 

[WayneLigon]

Our grou was discussing this last night. Do there need to be a "lot" of changes to justify 4E? I mean, why bother to do a new edition if it's just a new rules compilation? Are you guys getting the feeling that there are enough "good" changes occurring to justify it beyond simple good business sense on the part of the company?

Yes, I think there need to be a lot of changes - in fact, I think a lot more than are planned are needed but I also think that they're being parcelled out so as to upset as few people as possible with the true scope of change needed (think of is as driving a wedge into a rotten tree. Eventually you coax the tree to fall over instead of trying to blow it down in one go). So far, it seems like the vast majority of the ones I've heard about are good ones but we really won't known until we start seeing finalized versions of things.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Do there need to be a "lot" of changes to justify 4E?

Yes. Otherwise it's 3.75.

 

[Umbran]

Our grou was discussing this last night. Do there need to be a "lot" of changes to justify 4E?

Well, I think that really depends upon what grounds it does need to be justified. The business reasons are pretty strong, to my mind. So, the question for me is - given the business demands some major change, what sort of change does it need to be, and what sort of change should it be?

 

[delericho]

Our grou was discussing this last night. Do there need to be a "lot" of changes to justify 4E?

No, but I'd certainly prefer it that way. IMO, the scope of the changes for 4e is about right - it's just the specifics of some (okay, many) of the changes that I don't like.

 

[w_earle_wheeler]

First off, I want to say that I agree with almost every rule change that has been mentioned so far. Outside of the needless fluff changes, the evolution of the mechanics seems to be a step in the right direction.

I would have preferred it if WotC "fixed" 3.5 before moving onto 4e. The release of a Rules Compendium more in the style of the BECMI set could have done this (of course, it would have to be a 4 volume set at least). If they hadn't shot themselves in the foot with 3.5, they could have done this and received a fairly warm reception.

The tendency to fire, bloat and forget when it comes to designing rules systems is the standard I suppose, but it's always bugged me.

4e doesn't "need" lots of changes to be considered a new edition. However, WotC doesn't want it to be backward compatible... they've always viewed previous editions of D&D as a form of competition. If you are using your 3.5e Player's Handbook with a 2.5e Player's Option book and the 1.5e Unearthed Arcana to make a character (on a BECMI character sheet) for your DM's 1.0e adventure in a 2.0e campaign setting that he runs using the 4e Monster Manual and his 3.0e Dungeon Master's Guide and OD&D reference sheets then WotC views it as eight 4e book sales lost.

 

[pawsplay]

"A lot of changes" is really subjective. To me, 3rd edition was incremental compared to AD&D, but they were exactly the right changes to bring me back into the fold.

 

[Ranger REG]

Our grou was discussing this last night. Do there need to be a "lot" of changes to justify 4E? I mean, why bother to do a new edition if it's just a new rules compilation?

If it is just new rules compilation, why bother calling it a new edition?

Based on the changes to the classes, it's more than a rules refinement like 2e is to 1e.