Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Cadfan" data-source="post: 4117426" data-attributes="member: 40961">My reaction to 3e and to 4e were about the same.When 3e came out, at first I thought, &quot;What?&nbsp; Why?&quot;But then I read some of it.&nbsp; And I saw that it was the same game as 2e, except with all the different subsystems rolled into a cohesive whole.&nbsp; I saw that attack rolls were really just the same, except easier to remember.&nbsp; I saw that skills were basically the same, except standardized on a roll of a d20.&nbsp; I saw that character classes were the same, except that now you could mix and match classes and races pretty effectively without all sorts of rules wackiness.&nbsp; And I was excited.When 4e came out, I first thought, &quot;What? Why?&nbsp; Tome of Battle just came out!&nbsp; D&amp;D has already been fixed!&nbsp; What's left to improve other than maybe a general rebalancing of classes and spells?&quot;&nbsp; But then I read a bit.&nbsp; And I learned that it was basically the same game as 3e, except with rules wackiness fixed.&nbsp; This time, instead of the broad, sweeping standardization that 3e brought to the game, it was more technical mathematical fixes.&nbsp; Like fixing the way that unequal attack bonus progressions result in certain characters eventually becoming very bad.&nbsp; Or fixing the way that limited skill points lead to characters that excel in certain areas, but utterly fail at standard issue skills like riding a horse or swimming.&nbsp; And now I'm excited.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Cadfan, post: 4117426, member: 40961"] My reaction to 3e and to 4e were about the same. When 3e came out, at first I thought, "What? Why?" But then I read some of it. And I saw that it was the same game as 2e, except with all the different subsystems rolled into a cohesive whole. I saw that attack rolls were really just the same, except easier to remember. I saw that skills were basically the same, except standardized on a roll of a d20. I saw that character classes were the same, except that now you could mix and match classes and races pretty effectively without all sorts of rules wackiness. And I was excited. When 4e came out, I first thought, "What? Why? Tome of Battle just came out! D&D has already been fixed! What's left to improve other than maybe a general rebalancing of classes and spells?" But then I read a bit. And I learned that it was basically the same game as 3e, except with rules wackiness fixed. This time, instead of the broad, sweeping standardization that 3e brought to the game, it was more technical mathematical fixes. Like fixing the way that unequal attack bonus progressions result in certain characters eventually becoming very bad. Or fixing the way that limited skill points lead to characters that excel in certain areas, but utterly fail at standard issue skills like riding a horse or swimming. And now I'm excited. [/QUOTE]

Verification