Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Heselbine" data-source="post: 4323722" data-attributes="member: 64878">I dispute the assertion that D&amp;D 4e is as different from 3.5 as 3 is from 2. I always think of 3e as the first playable version of D&amp;D. Before then, there were so many house rules that everyone played D&amp;D differently, in my experience. From the point of view of a playable game, 1e and 2e were frankly awful. Sure I had some fun with them, but that's not the point.I see D&amp;D 4e as a straightforward tightening up of the game system which is a logical continuation of 3e. I really don't get all this stuff about it being a totally new game. The basic mechanics are all the same, they've just been honed. Little anomalies like if there's a trap, do you get a Reflex save or does the trap attack you have been ironed out.Powers and spells are of course quite different, and I can understand people thinking this is not like D&amp;D. But 3.5e was already going that way - look at the warlock in 3.5e - so it could hardly have been that surprising that the game was moving in this direction.What if another company had come up with 4e? I think you're right: if Paizo had come up with 4e I wouldn't have bought it. That doesn't mean I wouldn't have enjoyed the game just as much. But if Paizo had come up with 4e I would have been wondering where 'proper' 4e was going, and with it the majority of support for the game I've been playing for thirty years. When Wizards do the game, I can be fairly sure it will be supported and that other games companies will be providing material I can use without spending hours rehashing it.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Heselbine, post: 4323722, member: 64878"] I dispute the assertion that D&D 4e is as different from 3.5 as 3 is from 2. I always think of 3e as the first playable version of D&D. Before then, there were so many house rules that everyone played D&D differently, in my experience. From the point of view of a playable game, 1e and 2e were frankly awful. Sure I had some fun with them, but that's not the point. I see D&D 4e as a straightforward tightening up of the game system which is a logical continuation of 3e. I really don't get all this stuff about it being a totally new game. The basic mechanics are all the same, they've just been honed. Little anomalies like if there's a trap, do you get a Reflex save or does the trap attack you have been ironed out. Powers and spells are of course quite different, and I can understand people thinking this is not like D&D. But 3.5e was already going that way - look at the warlock in 3.5e - so it could hardly have been that surprising that the game was moving in this direction. What if another company had come up with 4e? I think you're right: if Paizo had come up with 4e I wouldn't have bought it. That doesn't mean I wouldn't have enjoyed the game just as much. But if Paizo had come up with 4e I would have been wondering where 'proper' 4e was going, and with it the majority of support for the game I've been playing for thirty years. When Wizards do the game, I can be fairly sure it will be supported and that other games companies will be providing material I can use without spending hours rehashing it. [/QUOTE]

Verification