Rules Changes Significant?

Combat might not play out that much differently, but I think the real changes will be in character creation/design. Talent trees and feats. No dead levels. New multiclass rules. Group roles. New way to acquire skills (if not new skills). Power sources. Crazy maneuvers.

Those are the changes I'm interested to see. And then break.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Yeah, it's funny. People complaining, at the same time in different threads, that there's too little and too many changes. I've seen in other threads how people want just a 3.75, rather than a 4th edition. Now some of the reactions in this thread.

In any case, it's pretty obvious the changes in 4th edition will be major... but we've already gotten some of those changes in books where they tested the rules out. I think the most major changes will be to the DM's side of things, and I can honestly say, as far as I'm concerned, it's about time.
 

Though I was behind my times, I began playing with THAC0. So I'm not sure that they can come up with a change that will shock me.
 

As someone who began playing pre-THAC0, I'm thinking that the most significant change will be, like in the new SW Saga rules, D&D will finally be a game where experienced characters actually seem better at avoiding being hit. I know that hit points have always supposedly represented this in abstract, but it doesn't work as well as actually giving characters a bonus to AC (or reflex save) per level. (There are other mechanics that other games have used, but a simple bonus seems most D&D-ish.)
 

Horacio said:
I think it will be a very small change compared with change from 2e to 3e.

I think you are smoking crack. I think the change will probably be larger than the change from 2e to 3e. Third edition had as one of its design goals capture the first edition feel. You could have largely used the 3e Monster Manual in 1e or 2e, and alot of the big new things in 3e - like the feats and skill systems, monsters having attributes, etc. - could have been ported directly into a 1e or 2e game without requiring alot of translation on the DMs part.

Many of the new things, like for example AoO, existed in some variation in many people's homebrews (including mine). In other words, if you were used to 1e and skipped 2e by and large, 3e seemed like a natural progression rather than a completely new game system. The math got cleaned up, and alot of the bugs were taken out, but it was still 'D&D'.

Fourth edition is going to change the game more than its changed since the change between OD&D and latter editions, and more than the total changes between 1e and 3.5.
 

Celebrim said:
I think you are smoking crack.

You're beginning well...

I think the change will probably be larger than the change from 2e to 3e. Third edition had as one of its design goals capture the first edition feel. You could have largely used the 3e Monster Manual in 1e or 2e, and alot of the big new things in 3e - like the feats and skill systems, monsters having attributes, etc. - could have been ported directly into a 1e or 2e game without requiring alot of translation on the DMs part.

Many of the new things, like for example AoO, existed in some variation in many people's homebrews (including mine). In other words, if you were used to 1e and skipped 2e by and large, 3e seemed like a natural progression rather than a completely new game system. The math got cleaned up, and alot of the bugs were taken out, but it was still 'D&D'.

Fourth edition is going to change the game more than its changed since the change between OD&D and latter editions, and more than the total changes between 1e and 3.5.

Why, if I can ask?

I don't know why you think it won't be D&D anymore, and what are those dramatic changes you foresee.

Many of the changes (at will powers, combat maneuvers) are already in official supplements (like warlock and maneuvers in Bo9S), and in many homebrews, so they are the logical evolution from 3e.
 

I think the changes are significant. I think that the combat change is going to be a big difference from 3.0/3.5. Whether it's as big a phase change as going from 2.0 to 3.0, I don't know. I never played 2.0. Now, the basic part of the structure that was there with 3E (feats, standardized numbers, etc) is still in, so that isn't as big a change. Regardless, it's all being talked about so much that it feels like big changes. We really won't know entirely until we get to Actual Play, will we? :)
 

Celebrim said:
I think you are smoking crack.


And I think folks should be careful about insinuating that others are mentally impaired in some way.

Please, everyone, remember that this sort of thing easily cheeses people off - it often comes across as just another way of saying, "you're stupid," and that's unkind. Whatever you feel about editions and publishing and all that, there's no reason to be unkind to the other folks around here.
 

Horacio said:
You're beginning well...

Celebrim doesn't do the funny well. Deliberately exagerrated emotional reaction? Hyperbole? I mean obviously I never actually believed you smoked crack. Oh nevermind...Pardon me if your offended.

Why, if I can ask?

Of course you can ask.

Let's suppose I had a 1st edition M-U and wanted to port him to third edition wizard. How dramatic would the change be? I'd gain some new skills. I'd gain some new feats. I'd have slightly different spells per day. But, I could generally have the same spell list, race, equipment, and so forth. Everything would be very familiar to me. The process would largely strike me as being an enhancement of my character. The translation process would be largely additive rather than transformative. This is not dramatic change, and this was by design. It was one of the goals of 3rd edition's design.

Of course, a few of my characters might not port very well. In particular, the single biggest change from a player perspective between 1st and 3rd is the multi-classing rules. If I had a multiclassed Thief-MU or Fighter-MU, I would not be able to make the same additive translation. I would loss things in the process of translating, because say a 11th level M-U/13th level Thief is really about a 14th level character in 3e, and I couldn't both keep my full thief skills and my full 11th level spell-casting ability in 3e. The character when translated would be a very different one in 3e than it was in 1st. That represents actual dramatic change. Of course, you might think that on the whole the new multiclassing rules was a good change, but it was nonetheless a truly dramatic one.

An actually more dramatic change than feats and skills was the relative power level of a 10th level fighter between additions. Your fighter might translate fairly exactly, but in the new D&D universe his actual relative power might be closer to a 7th level fighter in 3.0 and a 5th level fighter in 3.X. For example, a 10th level fighter in 1st could probably take on Balrogs single handedly. This is alot harder in 3.0 and impossible in 3.X. So there might have to be a dramatic change in campaign balancing and power expectations.

I don't know why you think it won't be D&D anymore, and what are those dramatic changes you foresee.

Have I made clear how I define 'dramatic'? Third edition was a dramatic change from some of the direction that 2e had been going in toward the end (for example 'Skills and Powers' and other quasi-point buy systems), but it wasn't a dramatic change compared to 1e or mainstream 2e.

Many of the changes (at will powers, combat maneuvers) are already in official supplements (like warlock and maneuvers in Bo9S), and in many homebrews, so they are the logical evolution from 3e.

Whether they are a logical evolution is not the point. The point is that they are a dramatic change. _IF_ your character is one from the Bo9S, by all appearances you will have less of a dramatic change in your character transforming him into a 3rd edition fighter than you will if you have a 3rd edition fighter and want to translate him into a 4th edition fighter. By WotC's own admission, there will be dramatic changes in the structure of every class. Or previous example of the Wizard is going to be losing the entire Vancian system that is at the heart of his class since the early days of D&D, is probably going to lose many of his named spells, and in many if not all cases is going to have to lose much of his spell list at a given level. He's going to lose powers and acquire new ones, and his relative power level regardless of addition is going to be dramaticly upset because of the proposed expansion of the core classes out to 30th level and the stated goal of increasing the sweet spot, increasing the granularity of the classes plus thier survivability at low levels.

Here is my prediction. When 4th edition comes out, much of it is going to be unrecognizable as D&D apart from the fluff - and even that is going to change significantly if the rumors about Warforged and Tieflings going core are true.
 

So, if I understand right, changing from 2e to 3e was indeed dramatic for certain PC (multiclasses, dual-classes), and the power level changed dramatically too.

And on top of that, a class appeared from nothing (as sorcerers), other reappeared in core book (as monk), classes reserved to human were opened to other races (halfling paladins, I'm looking at you!), dwarves were allowed to become mages and lots of other modification that had a significant change on fluff. And that's without speaking of AC and THAC0 being changed, Saving Throws reworked...

So from 2e to 3e the change was significant. And from 3e to 4e we will have the same type of change. I fail to see the big deal.
 

Pets & Sidekicks

Remove ads

Top