Significance of Rule Changes in Editions

[billd91]

Significance in rule changes? For my money, it's 3.5 -> 4e. I could use plenty of 1e and 2e materials with 3e because so much of the supporting background and fundamental assumptions were left alone.

Besides, if anybody thinks that the transition from 3.5 to 4e was ameliorated by late 3.5 releases, the same could could be said of some of the Players' Option books in 2e to 3e.

 

[Dice4Hire]

I think that is true. The last few 2E books and supplements and the last few 3.5 books and supplements clearly show the designers were looking forward to the new edition.

I think that going from 2E to 3.X was the biggest change because it really codified and clarified a lot of the non-combat parts of the game. 4e has done away with this to a large extent, which is one thing I dislike about it, though it s a good game.

 

[Umbran]

At the moment,"significance" is an entirely subjective thing. Some people will see a change as significant, others will look a the same change, and see it as insignificant.

There's nothing wrong with it being subjective, but I doubt there's going to be anything like a consensus. And anyone saying, "You are wrong, that is significant!" is going to have little to stand on.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Mechanically, 3e and 4e are a lot closer than 2e and 3e. But in terms of philosophy, 4e is the odd one out, it's significantly more gamist. Mind you, 3e had some gamism too, such as the Encounter Difficulty table on page 49 of the DMG.

 

[AllisterH]

One of the biggest changes was the underlying assumptions behind magic in the switch from 2e to 3e....

From actual spell acquisition, weapon vs spell speed with regard to initiative magical item creation, to the saving throw system, to even how spells were more dangerous in pre 3e with regard to the caster, the "rules behind the screen" changed.

It's personally why I was always slightly skeptical about claims that pre 3e campaign worlds will be the same as post 3e campaign worlds...pre 3e, I would say the worlds were scaled for non magic campaigns since really, even at mid to high levels, there's a good chance that no magic user has access to even the lowly KNOCK spell, whereas in 3e, the Scry, Buff, Teleport option HAS to be expected by the villains.

Sure, Knock at first glance doesn't look like it changed much from the switch to 3e, but that's what tripped up a lot of DMs and players until they got more familiar with the game.

 

[Ariosto]

Supplemental material foreshadowing the next edition goes back all the way, to 1E-->2E and Original-->Advanced.

I did not have that "frog getting boiled" kind of experience with 2nd or 3rd, at most glancing at some supplements. (Having grasped the solid foundation, I can add my own rococo superstructure that eventually collapses under its own weight; I don't need to shell out hard-earned simoleons for that!) So, I really noticed the differences when introduced to 3rd and 4th.

In 2nd and 3rd, it seemed the design committees were trying to "have their cake and eat it" -- not only keeping a bit of the old that clashed with the new but pulling in different new directions simultaneously. With 4th, it's more like (as one fellow put it in my first session), "Dungeons & Dragons is on the cover, but what's inside is a whole new game." It's clearly been redesigned from the bottom up, with a pretty coherent focus on the new goals.

The rogue is no longer primarily a burglar, nor the ranger a woodsman and spy; they are both primarily "strikers", defined by how they fight. Law and good deeds are no longer the meat and drink of paladins, but rather the "defender" combat role is. And so on: the reorientation of character concepts is holistic, reflected throughout the highly integrated system.

Likewise, the mantra of "balance" is not at all half-hearted. In a dispassionate triage, whatever could not be made to fit the scheme was discarded. One Rule to rule them all, One Rule to find them, One Rule to bring them all and in the system bind them ... with a thousand and one exceptions.

 

[Spatula]

Classes: At its core, D&D has always had Fighters, Thieves, Clerics, Wizards, and variations on them. Character class is at the core of character design, and each edition has made changes to them. But in my opinion I could take a character from AD&D to 3.5E and still recognize that character as the same one by adjusting the mechanics around its core. However I believe that in going from any previous edition to 4.0E that the core is altered to not make it recognizable from what it once was.

I can't really agree with this. Clerics radically changed between 1e and 2e with the advent of spell spheres and specialty priests, and then kinda changed back. Rogues went from being lackluster combatants in 1/2e to ninja warriors in 3/4e, a rather sizeable flavor change. Rangers and bards have undergone complete overhauls with nearly every edition. Fighters and wizards are the only classes whose "core" remains basically intact from 1e to 3e.

 

[Khairn]

Mechanically, 3e and 4e are a lot closer than 2e and 3e. But in terms of philosophy, 4e is the odd one out, it's significantly more gamist. Mind you, 3e had some gamism too, such as the Encounter Difficulty table on page 49 of the DMG.

This is my perception as well. 3E compared to 2E made a significant changes to the mechanics, but also made significant effort to maintain the existing flavor / style / sacred cows. 4E compared to 3E made fewer mechanical / system changes, but embraced more changes to flavor / sacred cows. Magic, being the biggest change.

So I guess that 3E had a much greater mechanical change, while 4E has made a much greater change in the flavor and play of the game.

 

[ggroy]

The combat mechanics at its core, is functionally almost identical between different editions regardless of its manifestation: combat tables (1E AD&D, OD&D, D&D box sets), THAC0 (2E AD&D), ascending AC (3E, 4E).

There was an article by Richard Adkison on page 24 in Dragon issue 249 (July 1998), which outlines an algorithm which translates the 2E THAC0 system into what eventually became the ascending AC system in 3E.

Adkison's system can be simply stated as:

(Attack Value) ATV = 21 - THAC0
(Defense Value) DFV = 21 - AC

In 3E language, DFV is the "new AC" in the ascending AC system while ATV is the "base level attack bonus" in the attack rolls:

melee attack = 1d20 + base level attack bonus + strength mod

ranged attack = 1d20 + base level attack bonus + dexterity mod + range penalty


Going back further back in time, there was an article by Travis Corcoran on page 18 in Dragon issue 117 (January 1987), which outlines a direct translation of the old 1E AD&D combat tables (along with the weapons vs. AC modifier tables) into something resembling "THAC0" calculations. Eventually the 2E THAC0 combat system didn't implement Corcoran's original detailed version of the weapons vs. AC modifier tables, but kept the "THAC0" method of determining the "to hit" numbers in combat.

 

[ggroy]

If one is really a "grognard", they can in principle translate the combat mechanics of 4E D&D all the way back to the style of the 1E AD&D combat tables.

If one is a complete total hardcore "grognard", they can probably even reverse engineer the weapons in 4E D&D into a "weapons vs. AC" modifier tables in the style of 1E AD&D.