NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jer" data-source="post: 3764869" data-attributes="member: 19857">The 2e -> 3e change was a massive one because 2e used mechanics that were already feeling dated in 1989.  Had the 2e designers been a little less worried about alienating their player base and a little more intent on streamlining and modernizing the rules, the 3e shift in 2000 might not have been as massive as it was.  On the whole, the 1e -> 2e change was pretty small mechanics wise, and most of the initial changes were in organization and presentation, not rules.  2e later expanded on the initial rules with band-aid fixes like "character kits", but the initial 2e rules basically took stuff that was scattered around various 1e supplements and reorganized them into the "core rules", along with a few rules tweaks to some systems that were clearly broken.Since the rules were already feeling dated in '89, and since a LOT of mechanics advancement in the RPG field in general happened between '89 and '99, the 3e change had to be massive just to get D&D up to the level of where the "state of the art" for the industry was in 2000.That's not true now - D&D has moved back to being a leader in its particular niche of roleplaying rather than lagging far behind other systems.  That means that the changes don't have to be as massive, nor should they be as massive.  Other game systems do not change as radically as D&D 2e -> 3e from edition to edition, and that should be the norm that we expect in an upgrade - not the fairly anomalous massive shift that was 3e.</blockquote>

Verification