Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 5689129" data-attributes="member: 22779">See, this is the problem with this conversation.&nbsp; Everyone seems to want to pick and choose which apples to compare.If you compare core to core, 1e to 3e, there are almost no similarities.&nbsp; Every class, every mechanic, every monster has been changed.&nbsp; Everyone works very differently.&nbsp; If we go by what Bill91 is saying and start comparing late 1e and late 2e to 3e, then why can't we compare late 3e/3.5 to 4e?And, things like warlocks, forex, are hardly late in the development cycle.&nbsp; Complete Arcane came out in what, 2004?&nbsp; it was one of the very early 3.5 splats.&nbsp; So, it's not like the idea of punting Vancian casting wasn't present pretty early on.To me, it's a pretty easy line to follow - the later era edition shapes a great deal of the next edition.&nbsp; Most of the changes are pretty clearly visible in the earlier edition and then incorporated in the later one.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 5689129, member: 22779"] See, this is the problem with this conversation. Everyone seems to want to pick and choose which apples to compare. If you compare core to core, 1e to 3e, there are almost no similarities. Every class, every mechanic, every monster has been changed. Everyone works very differently. If we go by what Bill91 is saying and start comparing late 1e and late 2e to 3e, then why can't we compare late 3e/3.5 to 4e? And, things like warlocks, forex, are hardly late in the development cycle. Complete Arcane came out in what, 2004? it was one of the very early 3.5 splats. So, it's not like the idea of punting Vancian casting wasn't present pretty early on. To me, it's a pretty easy line to follow - the later era edition shapes a great deal of the next edition. Most of the changes are pretty clearly visible in the earlier edition and then incorporated in the later one. [/QUOTE]

Verification