Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Vigilance" data-source="post: 3854621" data-attributes="member: 4275">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</blockquote>