The Nature of Change (or, Understanding Edition Wars)

[Lacyon]

I think that's definitely true.

But the thing is, I really enjoyed the so-called "4E preview" books for 3.5. Tome of Battle, and so forth. Wouldn't you think that those books and 4E would be in pretty close proximity on the dartboard?

I do think that these books and 4E are pretty close in proximity on the dartboard. At least, on my dartboard.

I'm willing to accept the possibility that my dartboard (or, I suppose, yours) is one that follows alien geometries, shifting in and out of the mere three dimensions that other dartboards occupy. It's also possible that you and I have differing ideas of "close proximity".

 

[Imaro]

I do think that these books and 4E are pretty close in proximity on the dartboard. At least, on my dartboard.

I'm willing to accept the possibility that my dartboard (or, I suppose, yours) is one that follows alien geometries, shifting in and out of the mere three dimensions that other dartboards occupy. It's also possible that you and I have differing ideas of "close proximity".

I think it all depends on what aspects of these "preview" books you enjoyed and whether 4e incorporated that aspect or not. Especially with SWSE, I feel that instead of trying to be so secretive... WotC should have specified what parts were previews for 4e. I don't think it's hard to understand how someone who, accepted SWSE as a preview for 4e, and who likes SWSE's multi-classing rules ... can suddenly go WTF, when they see D&D 4e's multi-classing rules. Just my thoughts though, YMMV.

 

[Lacyon]

I think it all depends on what aspects of these "preview" books you enjoyed and whether 4e incorporated that aspect or not. Especially with SWSE, I feel that instead of trying to be so secretive... WotC should have specified what parts were previews for 4e. I don't think it's hard to understand how someone who, accepted SWSE as a preview for 4e, and who likes SWSE's multi-classing rules ... can suddenly go WTF, when they see D&D 4e's multi-classing rules. Just my thoughts though, YMMV.

To be honest, I'm not sure "secretive" was always the right word.

It's pretty clear IMO that a lot of 4E (particularly about multiclassing) was shifting until fairly close to release.

But sure, a lot of the specifics of those books ended up being changed for 4E, and if you really liked the specifics of the prior book, the changes are going to feel like a "miss" regardless of how close to center they actually come, because you already have a product that's closer.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I don't think it's hard to understand how someone who, accepted SWSE as a preview for 4e, and who likes SWSE's multi-classing rules ... can suddenly go WTF, when they see D&D 4e's multi-classing rules. Just my thoughts though, YMMV.

Yes, I think that is easy to see. Saga multiclassing gave you "less" class abilities then 3E multiclassing - you didn't get all starting feats, most notably. But 4E gives you even less then that! The theme, though, is still the same from a certain perspective - classes have a front-loaded element and you don't get everything of this front-loading when you multi-class.

 

[Imaro]

Yes, I think that is easy to see. Saga multiclassing gave you "less" class abilities then 3E multiclassing - you didn't get all starting feats, most notably. But 4E gives you even less then that! The theme, though, is still the same from a certain perspective - classes have a front-loaded element and you don't get everything of this front-loading when you multi-class.

I guess I was moreso talking about the theme of "encouraged" multiclassing with more than one class, top construct the character you want, in SWSE... see how we looked at that in totally different ways?

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

For example, Mike might point you out that a certain rule is actually what you wanted, you just didn't notice it yet (or he communicated it badly).

I think folks know the product pretty well by now. The adoption gap is not a result of misunderstanding what is being offered.

A rule here or there might need clarification-- they usually do-- and that might help, but nothing is going to fix the major "departure" issues. These are not simply a matter of miscommunication.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I guess I was moreso talking about the theme of "encouraged" multiclassing with more than one class, top construct the character you want, in SWSE... see how we looked at that in totally different ways?

Yes. But then I am not sure I felt that multiclassing was so much encouraged in SAGA - I think that was always more D20 Modern for me, where "single-classing" was nearly impossible.

 

[pawsplay]

I never said 3.5 was shut down as far as production...but really, Who here is going to argue Elder Evils was something everybody was pinning for...

It was one of the few books I ran out and snapped up the day it came out. I would have bought it long ago... high level baddies to cap a campaign are great and I still have a soft spart in my heart for Zargon and the lost city.

Anyway, I think my favorite analogy is when your favorite "alternative rock" station becomes a "new rock" station and continues to play about half of what it was playing when you were still a freshman in college ten years ago, and half what we used to call "hard rock" or "heavy metal," up to and including Metallica.

 

[Spatula]

I guess I was moreso talking about the theme of "encouraged" multiclassing with more than one class, top construct the character you want, in SWSE... see how we looked at that in totally different ways?

Fully fulled character concepts are their own individual class in 4e, rather than cobbled together out of existing classes. This way of looking at 3e/4e multiclassing is thus kinda missing the point - they have different purposes, and certain goals are reached via different means in 4e.

 

[Intense_Interest]

The problem is that some people think we are dealing with a Terrier vs. a Shepard, others think we are dealing with a Dog vs. a Cat, and others think it is a Cat vs. a Turtle. The closer or farther apart one tries to make the difference in the analogy seems to me to betray just how far apart they see the 2 editions.

Argument by Analogy is a pretty hard sell to a lot of people in the first place, and shouldn't even be used.

If we are to say that 3E was a class-based system that contained a multiclassing sub-system that proceeded with point-based system attributes, does that make 3E a Dog, a Cat, a Turtle, a Parrot?

And then does the 4E class and multiclass system/subsystem then have discrete differences that relate it to 3E in the manner of breed or species?