Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Henry" data-source="post: 3904632" data-attributes="member: 158">One problem I think will be with the 3E to 4E conversion is that the 2E to 3E conversion was more or less an expansion back to a lot of frontiers that were contracted from 1E to 2E. Assassins returned; Barbarians returned; the old 1E bard and the dragonlance knightly orders was sort of used as a template for prestige classes; half-orcs returned; clerics were expanded to 9 spell levels; cantrips returned; more rules were added to make swashbuckler-types viable; feats and skills allowed customization that just wasn't well-done or even there under 2E, and so on.With 4E, we're retracting, even if for only a year or two, back to a core set of rules that may be ultimately more expandable than 3E, but still will not be the full volume of rules released under 3E. We also don't have that mass exodus of players from 3E the same way we had it under 2E. Under 2E, the game was on life support in the late 1990's; now, it may not be as healthy as it was in the early 2000's, but it's still got a very formidable player base going on right now. So there seems to be more resistance to change than there was in 1999 to 2000. It may just be my perception, but I recall quite a lot of enthusiasm in 3E from sources that with 4E just aren't that enthused by what we've seen. If the release of the rules can change this somewhat, I'll be glad; if not, there could well be a lot more fragmentation with 4E than there was with the D&amp;D player base in 2000.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Henry, post: 3904632, member: 158"] One problem I think will be with the 3E to 4E conversion is that the 2E to 3E conversion was more or less an expansion back to a lot of frontiers that were contracted from 1E to 2E. Assassins returned; Barbarians returned; the old 1E bard and the dragonlance knightly orders was sort of used as a template for prestige classes; half-orcs returned; clerics were expanded to 9 spell levels; cantrips returned; more rules were added to make swashbuckler-types viable; feats and skills allowed customization that just wasn't well-done or even there under 2E, and so on. With 4E, we're retracting, even if for only a year or two, back to a core set of rules that may be ultimately more expandable than 3E, but still will not be the full volume of rules released under 3E. We also don't have that mass exodus of players from 3E the same way we had it under 2E. Under 2E, the game was on life support in the late 1990's; now, it may not be as healthy as it was in the early 2000's, but it's still got a very formidable player base going on right now. So there seems to be more resistance to change than there was in 1999 to 2000. It may just be my perception, but I recall quite a lot of enthusiasm in 3E from sources that with 4E just aren't that enthused by what we've seen. If the release of the rules can change this somewhat, I'll be glad; if not, there could well be a lot more fragmentation with 4E than there was with the D&D player base in 2000. [/QUOTE]

Verification