Playtesting vs a .5 Edition

[Dog Moon]

Man, I hate to be compelled to say it, but... holy murgatory, that's just ridiculous. It's the downright craziest thing I've seen written about 4E. "This jump is not that big"? With all the radical changes to classes, never-before seen races, alignments, planes, everyone with same BAB & saves, total demolition of the entire spell/magic system, etc.?

They're NOT saying that it's not big. They're just saying that it isn't as big as the jump from 2e to 3e, which is true.

 

[Kraydak]

Man, I hate to be compelled to say it, but... holy murgatory, that's just ridiculous. It's the downright craziest thing I've seen written about 4E. "This jump is not that big"? With all the radical changes to classes, never-before seen races, alignments, planes, everyone with same BAB & saves, total demolition of the entire spell/magic system, etc.?

I'm with you. 3.5->4e, from our limited information, strikes me as by far the biggest change in DnD history.

 

[Fifth Element]

I'm with you. 3.5->4e, from our limited information, strikes me as by far the biggest change in DnD history.

Okay, an assertion like that calls for some support. Adding a couple of new races is not really a big change by itself. The basic mechanics of the game will change very little (d20, add modifiers, beat DC). Especially if you're talking 3.5 to 4, rather than 3.0 to 4, since as The Rouse said, some of the things being incorporated in 4E were tested in 3.5 (Bo9S, etc).

Please support your assertion, and bear in mind you're contradicting someone (The Rouse), who does have access to information about 4E. I know you said "from our limited information", but given you're disputing something from someone with better info, your case will need to be very strong.

 

[Kraydak]

Okay, an assertion like that calls for some support. Adding a couple of new races is not really a big change by itself. The basic mechanics of the game will change very little (d20, add modifiers, beat DC). Especially if you're talking 3.5 to 4, rather than 3.0 to 4, since as The Rouse said, some of the things being incorporated in 4E were tested in 3.5 (Bo9S, etc).

Please support your assertion, and bear in mind you're contradicting someone (The Rouse), who does have access to information about 4E. I know you said "from our limited information", but given you're disputing something from someone with better info, your case will need to be very strong.

For me, personally, the shift to D20 mechanics wasn't a big thing. It was cleaning up a messy system and rationalizing it. The core was untouched. The multi-classing/unified xp table change was the biggest change in actual *play*. However, you still had (only) per-day and constant abilities.

4e appears to be changing "play" dramatically, with the addition (dominance?) of per-encounter abilities (which did appear, yes, in late 3.5) for all classes. It is also changing the mechanics (certainly for the better for a large level spread) by changing the per-level number progression. Whatever means they use to give fighters a melee edge over wizards will be as big a change as feats and different saving throw categories were.

 

[Fifth Element]

For me, personally, the shift to D20 mechanics wasn't a big thing. It was cleaning up a messy system and rationalizing it.

Indeed. The d20 mechanic from 2E to 3E was not too different. The d20 mechanic from 3E to 4E will be virtually identical.

Whatever means they use to give fighters a melee edge over wizards will be as big a change as feats and different saving throw categories were.

I can't agree with that. At all. The changes to saves, the new skill system, and (especially) the addition of feats were very big changes. Since fighters already had an edge over wizards in melee, making the edge bigger doesn't seem like that big of a change, especially since one way they're doing it was actually introduced in 3.5 (Bo9S).

I'll need something far more convincing than that. Otherwise I'll have to agree with The Rouse.

 

[Kraydak]

Indeed. The d20 mechanic from 2E to 3E was not too different. The d20 mechanic from 3E to 4E will be virtually identical.

At least we agree there

I can't agree with that. At all. The changes to saves, the new skill system, and (especially) the addition of feats were very big changes. Since fighters already had an edge over wizards in melee, making the edge bigger doesn't seem like that big of a change, especially since one way they're doing it was actually introduced in 3.5 (Bo9S).

I'll need something far more convincing than that. Otherwise I'll have to agree with The Rouse.

Feats were a decent sized change. Going from a different per-level BaB gain to a universal per-level BaB gain with some other mechanic to differentiate between classes is a big change (and distinctly for the better). 3e's skills vs 2e's proficiencies+thief abilities was a notable change. It did not, however, distinctly change game-play (the numbers were a wee bit different, the abilities available remained the same). Going from no per-encounter abilities to many (and a possible dominance by) per-encounter abilities will (as signs point to, at least) have an immense effect on actual game play.

2e->3e was a numbers change+new (better!) multiclassing. 3e->4e seems to be a (substantial in effect if it works over 30 levels) numbers change+per-encounter abilities.

 

[Fifth Element]

Going from no per-encounter abilities to many (and a possible dominance by) per-encounter abilities will (as signs point to, at least) have an immense effect on actual game play.

3.5 already has some per-encounter abilities. They were introduced in 3.5. I agree that the increasing importance of per-encounter abilities is one of the biggest changes in 4E. But they're not new.

 

[Gundark]

Uh... we did get a 3.5 because there were things that needed to be changed because there wasn't enough playtesting on that edition right?

?

Oh wonderfull...now we have two threads discussing this.

 

[Vigilance]

Uh... we did get a 3.5 because there were things that needed to be changed because there wasn't enough playtesting on that edition right?

?

3e was very heavily playtested.

Just not playtested by millions of people for 5 years.

That was the process that revealed some of the problems they addressed in 3.5

Are you suggesting they should do that?

 

[Cadfan]

All problems with any edition of D&D exist because of inadequate playtesting. If only adequate playtesting were performed, the ultimate edition would be created. No further editions would be needed, ever. We could take the master copy of the three core books, dip them in molten gold, and place them in a shrine on a mountaintop in the middle east- and every game designer on earth could commit ritual suicide, for having seen perfection, there would be no reason to continue to live.