Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mistwell" data-source="post: 3941774" data-attributes="member: 2525">First, I totally disagree about the &quot;radical departure from the norm&quot;.&nbsp; Again, please compare 3.5 with expansion books to OD&amp;D.&nbsp; I do not see how someone can look at the differences between those editions and think that 4e is a more radical change.&nbsp; OD&amp;D had just three character classes (fighting-man, magic-user and cleric); four races (human, dwarf, elf, hobbit); only a few monsters; and only three alignments (lawful, neutral, and chaotic).&nbsp; Contrast that with 3.5 D&amp;D and you are looking at a much more radical change than 4e to 3.5e.Heck, when I was young and playing the &quot;basic&quot; D&amp;D, an &quot;elf&quot; meant a fighter/magic user (and was both the race AND the class).&nbsp; There were four races: elves, dwarves, halflings, and humans.&nbsp; And that was no more or less D&amp;D than the current edition.Second, all rules are optional. I never understood the idea that &quot;core&quot; was in any way more special than an expansion book (and they are not splat books anymore by the way...that term went out in 3.0, since the &quot;splat&quot; part no longer applies given names like &quot;Tome of Battle: Book of Nine Swords&quot;).&nbsp; It's all rules from the same company for the same game. People use different parts of all of them (and most people use different parts of &quot;core&quot; as well).&nbsp; When the Rules Compendium (which included rules found in many expansion books) says &quot;these rules override the rules in the PHB and DMG and MM&quot; how is that less important than the &quot;core&quot;?Anyway, all I am saying is that 4e is D&amp;D, just not the D&amp;D you like.&nbsp; Which is fine.&nbsp; I just think it's objectively not accurate to say &quot;4e is not D&amp;D&quot;.&nbsp; It will go down in history as &quot;D&amp;D&quot;.&nbsp; As much &quot;D&amp;D&quot; as OD&amp;D and 3.5e &quot;D&amp;D&quot;.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mistwell, post: 3941774, member: 2525"] First, I totally disagree about the "radical departure from the norm". Again, please compare 3.5 with expansion books to OD&D. I do not see how someone can look at the differences between those editions and think that 4e is a more radical change. OD&D had just three character classes (fighting-man, magic-user and cleric); four races (human, dwarf, elf, hobbit); only a few monsters; and only three alignments (lawful, neutral, and chaotic). Contrast that with 3.5 D&D and you are looking at a much more radical change than 4e to 3.5e. Heck, when I was young and playing the "basic" D&D, an "elf" meant a fighter/magic user (and was both the race AND the class). There were four races: elves, dwarves, halflings, and humans. And that was no more or less D&D than the current edition. Second, all rules are optional. I never understood the idea that "core" was in any way more special than an expansion book (and they are not splat books anymore by the way...that term went out in 3.0, since the "splat" part no longer applies given names like "Tome of Battle: Book of Nine Swords"). It's all rules from the same company for the same game. People use different parts of all of them (and most people use different parts of "core" as well). When the Rules Compendium (which included rules found in many expansion books) says "these rules override the rules in the PHB and DMG and MM" how is that less important than the "core"? Anyway, all I am saying is that 4e is D&D, just not the D&D you like. Which is fine. I just think it's objectively not accurate to say "4e is not D&D". It will go down in history as "D&D". As much "D&D" as OD&D and 3.5e "D&D". [/QUOTE]

Verification