Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Darth Cyric" data-source="post: 4116927" data-attributes="member: 55722">Yup, that's exactly right. Everything being said about 4e now was said about 3e in 2000, and about 2e in 1989.As for 3e in comparison to the earlier editions, every genuine improvement was met with a serious problem, so I, too, don't feel an attachment to 3e. Furthermore, most of 3e's genuine improvements were to things that were merely counterintuitive, but NOT broken, in AD&D (AC, Thac0, ability scores, etc.). The unified XP table looked good on paper when I had heard about it during development, but that didn't matter when, a few months playing, the classes turned out so much more unbalanced than they ever were in AD&D. 3.5 was a band-aid on an artery wound.I'm keeping an open mind about 4e just like I did about 3e before its release. However, the difference here seems to be that while 3e fixed what was merely counterintuitive about AD&D, 4e is looking to fix what was flat out broken in 3e. Whether it succeeds or not is still to be determined. Who knows, maybe a few months down the road I will be anti-4e like I have been anti-3e for so long.</blockquote>