Not really. Edition wars were going strong.
No one ever pointed out that you were in a forum, devoted to a game you didn't, play, just complaining about that game? I remember the edition war. H4ters were told that every day. It didn't dissuade you, did it?
Abdul isn't doing anything as counter-productive or intellectually dishonest as what was going on in the edition wars. It's hypocritical of you to try to take some sort of high ground and tell him he's out of line.
It was the first time D&D splintered as it had. D&D was very much used to little to no competition as the top dog of the TTRPG genre. That period was a strange time that will probably have a unique place in TTRPG history.
Maybe the internet just magnified it, that time. But, 3.x did get some grognard backlash, including talking points, like 'grid dependence' that were recycled for the edition war. And, there was a split, between 0e fans who took up Arduin, and those who adopted or started with Basic or AD&D. You just couldn't get a good flame-war going in Out on a Limb.
You were here? The back and forth was vicious. I haven't seen the term grognard tossed out yet. That term was common in the 4E days. I was called it many times.
I was mostly on the Wizards site, but here, too, yeah. ENWorld was a little less vicious, and leaned to the h4ter side a bit, while Wizards leaned 4venger.
Besides, Abdul, you, & I /are/ grognards. We're the old guard who have been with D&D since the fad years, if not a few years before.
It sort of returns to the classic game and sort of does some other stuff. The Concentration mechanic is entirely new.
You don't remember the various spells in AD&D that required concentration throughout, nor the concentration needed to cast spells, or the way either sort was broken by any damage, and impossible when prone, riding a mount, or walking at a normal pace?
Bounded Accuracy is an entirely new concept in D&D. It might something from another game, but I haven't experienced it.
Ever play 3.5 in E6 mode? And, yes many games have much less dramatic character advancement. Though both are much more profound than Bounded Accuracy. The main difference between BA and 3.5 or classic D&D is not the size of the numbers (which, sure, or smaller, but that's little more than cosmetic), but the fact that those ability bonus and proficiency numbers are the same scale for everyone. Putting ability bonuses on the same scale was an early-90s innovation found in TRS Gamma World, and adopted by D&D with 3.0, as was putting all classes on the same experience/level table. Taking BAB, save DCs, skills &c, and putting them all on the same level-based scale regardless of class (which is what 5e Bounded Accuracy's proficiency bonus /is/), was, of course, a 4e innovation. 4e just did it with bigger numbers over more levels.
Even back in the early days of D&D a group of orcs was nothing to a high level character stacked with magic items.
Or a low level one with Sleep.
Flattening the AC and defense curve to make it so orcs are a legitimate enemy for high level characters was a very cool addition to the game.
In 3.x, defenses rose rapidly with level, mostly via huge 'Natural Armor' bonuses for monsters, and magic items for PCs. In classic, while PC AC could get very high (at any level) if festooned with magic items, Monty-Haul style, there was no level progression for AC, either among monster or PCs. In 5e, that progression is just small. And 3.x already made orcs a legitimate enemy for high-level characters - by letting orcs level.
Attunement was a much better way to get rid of the magic item Christmas tree than anything I had seen prior, while still incorporating a mechanic that allows for interesting and powerful magic items.
Nod. It was nice when RuneQuest came up with it 35 years ago, too. Though the big problem was that the Christmas tree effect was needed in most editions, to keeps certain classes relevant at higher levels. 5e did step back from that, in theory, in not 'baking in' magic item bonuses. Some sub-classes would still need magic items to keep up in other areas, though.
There was a lot of rules refinement that greatly improved on the game that did not exist in prior editions.
I find some of the new innovations very interesting.
You may not have noticed them in prior editions (or other games) but they were out there.
I no longer consider tons of rules more advanced than simple, effective rules as I did prior to 5E. They really seemed to find some core rules that are simple, effective, and advanced not seen in previous editions.
Well, if by 'previous editions' you mean 3.x/Pathfinder - and discount B/X (which you've already mentioned, so I'm guessing you don't discount it), not to mentions the many variations under which classic D&D tended to be played.
5e looks rules-lite compared to 3.x/Pathfinder. If you only compared the core 3 books, though the difference would seem a lot less pronounced. And it's not anymore elegant in design than 3.0 was.
I'm glad RAW is seriously minimized. Holy crap, I hated trying to figure out RAW versus RAI. Sometimes it seemed like even the designers didn't know. Then some of the crazy players on the boards would come up with using RAW was so absurd and nonsensical I seriously wondered if there were DMs out there allowing such interpretations.
I did get to play a Dragonwrought Kobold Loredrake once, so yes, a few.
5e gets away with repeating some the mistakes of the past, because it's been lucky enough to avoid that particular mistake, thanks to the way it evangelizes for DM Empowerment. A determined DM can make up for a lot.
Speaking of unique times in D&D history that will probably never be repeated.... hopefully the RAW thing doesn't become a pendulum. But, it so seems like the kind of thing that could be...
