D&D 4E Rant on the 4E "Presentation"

Veander said:
But who plays 3.5 with 3.0 books? I had a couple players try it and it was simply annoying to them and the rest of the group. Too many times they'd have some rule problem simply because they didn't know there was a change in that area. I ended up buying a PHB for one of them. The reality is you have to buy 4e and it's only been a couple years since we had to buy new books for 3.5.
I only know one person who tried to play 3.5 while using a 3.0 PHB; however, as a DM, I've frequently used 3.0 sourcebooks and modules in 3.5.
My intended point, however, was that it has not been "a couple of" (i.e. 2) years since 3.5. It's been over 4 years, and by the time 4e is out it'll have been nearly 5. Even if you consider 3.5 to be it's own full edition (which is certainly defensible), 5 years isn't that short of a run, IMO.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Vigilance said:
I totally disagree with this assessment. 2e was much more different from 1e than 3.5 is from 3e.

Did any core classes completely disappear in 3.5?

Illusionist, Monk and Assassin were core in 1e. Totally gone in 2e.

Any core races?

Again, the half-orc was in 1e, but not 2e.

Did the way clerics get their spells totally change in 3.5? Did some priests no longer have the ability to cast healing spells at all?

So yes, the editions got a little closer together, but let's not distort the issue entirely shall we? If you want to talk about editions going from 11 years (2e to 3e) to 8 years (3.* to 4) I'm ok with that, that's a discussion worth having.

But if you want to muddy the waters and claim that 1e and 2e were the same game, while 3.0 and 3.5 are different games, that's where you go off the rails.

We haven't gone from 20 years to 4 years between editions.

Having played every edition of D&D since 1e, I know an edition when I see one. 2e was a new edition, 3.5 was not.

That people TREATED it like it was, and dropped 3.0 books like they were hot rocks, is more a question of consumer psychology than rules.

Chuck

My point was the mechanical changes between 1st and 2nd were about as minor as those from 3.0 to 3.5.
 

JoeGKushner said:
My point was the mechanical changes between 1st and 2nd were about as minor as those from 3.0 to 3.5.

And my point is that no, they weren't.

Three core classes were removed from 3.5 that were present in 3.0?

The Cleric spell list was massively overhauled?

A race was taken away?

You were attempting to say that "1e", by which you meant 1e and 2e lasted 20 years, while 3e, 3.5 and 4e constitute 3 editions in 7 years and you're flat wrong.
 

Vigilance said:
And my point is that no, they weren't.

Three core classes were removed from 3.5 that were present in 3.0?

The Cleric spell list was massively overhauled?

A race was taken away?

You were attempting to say that "1e", by which you meant 1e and 2e lasted 20 years, while 3e, 3.5 and 4e constitute 3 editions in 7 years and you're flat wrong.

So you're saying the minimum mechanical conversion between 1st and 2nd edition isnt' simliar to 3.0 and 3.5? Hell, you must've had a lot of different experiences than I did.

Am I saying there were NO Changes? Not at all. The core mechanics though? Not a lot of changes going on there.

Here's some from 1st to 2nd.

Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st Edition to 2nd Edition
Half-orcs were removed from the Player's Handbook, although they would be again made a playable race in supplements such as the Complete Book of Humanoids.
Character classes were grouped into one of four groups: Warrior (Fighter, Paladin, Ranger), Wizard (Mage, Specialist Wizard), Priest (Cleric, Druid), and Rogue (Thief, Bard).
Assassins and Monks (from Players Handbook) and Barbarians and Cavaliers (from Unearthed Arcana), were removed from the game as character classes. Later supplements would introduce "kits" bearing the names of these classes and/or optional classes from sources such as Complete Book of Barbarians.
"Magic-users" were renamed "mages".
Illusionists were made into a subtype of the Wizard class, along with new classes specializing in the other seven schools of magic (which were first introduced in Dragonlance Adventures).
Bards were made a normal character class, rather than the multiple-classed character that they had been, although they still possessed elements of fighters, thieves, and mages.
Proficiencies were officially supported in the Player's Handbook and many supplements, rather than being the optional add-on found in a handful of 1st Edition supplements.
Attack matrices were renamed "THAC0" (To Hit Armor Class 0) and the table printed only once in the Dungeon Master's Guide was reprinted in the second edition Player's Handbook and Dungeon Master's Guide.
References to "segments" (individual units of time representing one phase of initiative, or 6 seconds of game-time [simulated time]) were removed from the game; instead, actions were given an "Initiative Modifier". "Melee rounds" were unchanged, representing one minute of game-time, with a "turn" representing ten rounds (ten minutes). An optional alternative where one "melee round" represents 12-15 seconds of "game-time" was presented in the "Player's Option: Combat and Tactics" book, first of the so-called 2.5 Edition.
Priest spells were organized into themed "spheres" that were similar to the wizard spell schools that had been introduced in Dragonlance Adventures, with access to spheres being determined by the priest's class and deity.
Descriptions of artifacts (unique magic items) were removed from the Dungeon Master's Guide.
Many utilities, including tables for random generation of dungeons, were removed from the Dungeon Master's Guide.
The weight of coins was changed from 1/10 lb. each to 1/50 lb. each, making the carrying of large numbers of coins out of an adventure site much less of an impediment.
Exchange rates for the low-valued coins were doubled; it now took only 100 copper pieces or 10 silver pieces to make one gold piece.
The hardcover Monster Manual was initially replaced by the looseleaf binder-format Monstrous Compendium; the Monstrous Compendium would eventually be replaced by the hardcover Monstrous Manual.
Dragons were increased in strength and power to make the title monsters of the game a more serious challenge to players.
Fiendish and angelic creatures (demons, devils, daemons, devas, solars, etc.) were removed from the game, as were spells that allowed such creatures to be summoned or controlled. These creatures would later be renamed and modified in the Monstrous Compendium supplement on the Outer Planes.



Here's some from 3.0 to 3.5.

Dungeons & Dragons 3rd Edition to 3.5 Edition
This revision was intentionally a small one (hence the name change of only "half an edition"), small enough so that the basic rules are nearly identical and many monsters / items are compatible (or even unchanged) between those editions. In fact, some players, disliking some changes 3.5 made, use some 3e rules as house rules. Official errata for many of the most popular books are available for download as D&D v.3.5 Accessory Update Booklet.


[edit] Major changes
The ranger class receives more skill points and new class abilities, though fewer hit points.
Druids can cast summon nature's ally spells spontaneously, just like the cleric's spontaneous casting. Their abilities were also reworked and animal companions were improved.
Weapon sizes work differently: there are now smaller and bigger versions of weapons for smaller and larger creatures.
Damage reduction no longer depends on the enhancement bonus of a weapon, but rather on its material (e.g. cold iron), magical enhancement, magical alignment, or some combination thereof. DR ratings were reduced to 5, 10, 15, or 20 from a range of much higher numbers (e.g. the iron golem went from 50/+3 to 15/adamantine).
New spells and numerous changes to existing spells.
New feats and numerous changes to existing feats.
Monsters gain feats and skills the same way as PCs, usually resulting in more skill points and feats for every monster.
The favored class for gnomes was changed to bard.
Some high-end monsters (notably the balor and pit fiend) were altered to make them more powerful and thus warrant higher Challenge Ratings.
Many new core prestige classes.

[edit] Minor changes
The ranger and bard receive more skill points per level.
Different rate of gaining new abilities for almost all the classes.
Bards do not suffer arcane spell failure when wearing light armor.
Some player races gain Weapon Familiarity, which allows them to treat exotic racial weapons as martial for proficiency purposes.
Sorcerers and bards can change known spells infrequently.
There are no longer skills exclusive to certain classes.
Some skills changed and a few were folded together: for example, Wilderness Lore and Intuit Direction are now Survival.

[edit] Changes to the core books
In addition to rule changes, the core books themselves underwent changes.

The chapter on combat (chapter 8) in the Player's Handbook was modified to increase focus on grid-based movement and combat.
In the chapter order of the Dungeon Master's Guide was completely changed, and many prestige classes were added. Some magic item traits were changed as well, though they generally remained the same.
The Monster Manual's monster entries changed slightly. In particular, the attack line was split into Attack and Full Attack entries. Also, most monsters gained an enhanced version as an example of advancement, with more Hit Dice, a template, or class levels. All of the monsters that the writers thought could be used as player races gained instructions on how to use them as such.

Another... point of comparrision. How many 3.5 books state on the cover, Compatible with 3.0 and 3.5 rules. I'm not saying that 2nd ed was famous for it, but at least one, Greyhawk Adventures, had that on the cover no? For 3.0 to 3.5, the Fiend Folio may quality, but it didn't boldly announce itself as such.
 
Last edited:

You had to buy 3.5, it's as simple as that. If we didn't haev to buy the new books, then this argument would be about differences alone. Instead the differences were great enough to constitute people buying new books. As will 4e. So you can't tell me you're happy replacing a game system every 4 - 5 years. If you are happy with that, then I guess you're part of the problem that I have with 4e and everything behind it. Heck, even if 4e rocks, I'm still going to wonder exactly why I'll have to buy into it.
 

JoeGKushner said:
So you're saying the minimum mechanical conversion between 1st and 2nd edition isnt' simliar to 3.0 and 3.5? Hell, you must've had a lot of different experiences than I did.

Am I saying there were NO Changes? Not at all. The core mechanics though? Not a lot of changes going on there.

So, is your point that 2e to 3e was a bigger jump than 1e to 2e?

I agree with that.

But there was really only one change between 3e and 3.5 that I'd consider major, and that was the Ranger class.

I mean, the list I posted earlier, of just the things that sprang to mind about the 1e-2e differences, had things like entire classes being removed. That's a bigger change than what happened to the Ranger.

And races were removed, which is certainly a bigger change than one of the things you had on your "major change list", which was Gnomes having their favored class changed to Bard.

Boy, I know that really forced several PCs in MY game to rework their characters! Or not.

You seem to be confused by the fact that because 3e was a huge change, somehow that makes all changes new editions, or all changes not, hence you assertion that if 3e and 3.5 get lumped together, 1e and 2e have to be lumped together.

Just because the game changed less between 1e and 2e than it did between 2e and 3e, doesn't mean 2e wasn't a new edition.

2e had more wholesale changes over 1e, than 3.5 did over 3e.

And again, you mentioned quite a few I'd missed, such as the removal of entire categories of monsters (demons and devils).

And yes, that's a more substantive change than the Gnome's favored class getting nerfed, just like the removal of 3 core classes is a bigger change than a few core classes getting nerfed between 3e and 3.5

Trying to say we went from 20 years with one edition, to 3 editions in 7 years, is not only intellectually dishonest, but it just muddies the waters of debate.

Yes, editions are getting closer together.

Yes, that's worth talking about.

But no, this isn't 20 years vs. 4 years, its 11 years vs. 8 years. 2e was 1989, 3e was 2000, 4e will be 2008.

And I'd also point out, that 3e would have come sooner had TSR not gone into a financial spiral as well. So even 11 years might be statistically misleading.

To Veander: No, you didn't have to buy 3.5 and you don't have to buy 4e.

Unless someone came to your house with a gun and ordered you to get out your credit card, you could have continued to play 3e.

In fact, if more people HAD continued to play 3e, books would have continued to come out that were compatible with it.
 

Vigilance said:
And I'd also point out, that 3e would have come sooner had TSR not gone into a financial spiral as well. So even 11 years might be statistically misleading.

I think that even AD&D 1st edition should have been revised earlier. Around Unearthed Arcana, I think a new edition of that game would have done wonders for the game.

/M
 

Vigilance said:
To Veander: No, you didn't have to buy 3.5 and you don't have to buy 4e.

Unless someone came to your house with a gun and ordered you to get out your credit card, you could have continued to play 3e.

In fact, if more people HAD continued to play 3e, books would have continued to come out that were compatible with it.

Sure, if I want to limit my gamer pool to a small number, that's a great way to look at it. Speculation is one thng, but the facts are that the previous editions had more time to ferment and sit before they overhauled the system. In fact many of the authors of the 1st edition stuff weren't part of the 2nd. Yet with 3.0, 3.5 and 4.0, we have a healthy amount of authors who are going to have had a hand in every one of those editions. Just seems rather fast to me and I just haven't been sold on it. I am surprised anyone is behind 4e as much as I see. I'm not against the edition so much as against the timing, but boy some folks are arguing for 4e in ways I wouldn't have thought possible.

As far as people continuing to buy books, I think we run into the true reason 4e is hitting us only 4-5 years after 3.5 came out.... money. Hasbro is a corporation that wants to see some sort of cash flow and these "Complete Guide to This That" books aren't going to do it.
 
Last edited:

Maggan said:
I think that even AD&D 1st edition should have been revised earlier. Around Unearthed Arcana, I think a new edition of that game would have done wonders for the game.

/M

I believe it was planned--I've seen DRAGON Magazine columns by Gygax talking about a 2nd edition, and there was material on its development in there going back to 1986 at least, IIRC. Unfortunately, my collection of DRAGON Magazines is strongest on the late 100s--late 200s range, so I don't have any precise citations. Anyone with the Archive CD or a better collection want to look them up?

Perhaps the issue isn't that 4E is coming out too soon after 3E, but that the lifespans of 1E and 2E were unnaturally extended. 2E was planned sooner and probably was delayed by turnover at TSR, and I suspect we would have seen 3E a year or two earlier if TSR hadn't collapsed in late 1996.
 

Veander said:
As far as people continuing to buy books, I think we run into the true reason 4e is hitting us only 4-5 years after 3.5 came out.... money. Hasbro is a corporation that wants to see some sort of cash flow and these "Complete Guide to This That" books aren't going to do it.

This might come as a suprise to you, but there are plenty of people here who are aware of that fact, and at the same time are ok with the fact that WotC exists to make money.

It might seem strange, but it is entirely possible to be aware of the general idea of the commercial realities governing the releases of D&D, and still be excited about the changes to the game.

/M
 

Remove ads

Top