Which edition change changed the game the most?

[Dannyalcatraz]

Perhaps, but it is true that the rulebooks, prior to 3e, all discouraged mass sales of magic items, and the 3e rulebooks encourage that anything within a certain budget (based on settlement size) ought to be available.

Dating back to perhaps my third campaign- waaaay back in 1982- I've seen Ye Olde Magick Shoppe run one way almost exclusively: the existence of something on the list of magic items doesn't mean it's in stock in that store at this time...or at the price you want to pay.

I run mine that way as well.

While that may be true, the OGL and d20 system basically permitted a flourishing of 3pp that provided alternative rules to those of D&D 3e, which formed the central backbone or starting point of those changes. These 3pp probably served as an excellent tool for market research, as WotC would likely be able to judge through the ENnies which products with what changes were garnering the most attention and acclaim.

Again, that is essentially a change in the market; the gaming industry- not a change in the game itself.

 

[Reynard]

I think each editions art has done a good job of evoking what that game was about. That alone says something important.

 

[MerricB]

It should be said that I'm not really a fan of most 3E or 4E art. There are some fantastic pieces, but - in general - it's boring or technically inferior. Too much is flat and lifeless.

This artwork - from the 3E supplement, Frostburn - is one of the few really inspiring bits of art over the past ten years:

Conversely, check the gallery for the 3E product, Complete Mage:
https://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ag/20061006a&page=1

What a lot of poses!

Cheers!

 

[Wik]

It should be said that I'm not really a fan of most 3E or 4E art. There are some fantastic pieces, but - in general - it's boring or technically inferior. Too much is flat and lifeless.

This artwork - from the 3E supplement, Frostburn - is one of the few really inspiring bits of art over the past ten years:

Conversely, check the gallery for the 3E product, Complete Mage:
https://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ag/20061006a&page=1

What a lot of poses!

Cheers!

Oh, we're both on the same page - I'm not a huge fan of wotc art, either, and I haven't been for a long time. However, I became much more vocal about it when 4e came out - it was a combination of the art plus the layout. And the character poses seemed MUCH more posed than in 3e, at least to my eye.

There are some good pieces of 3e (and 4e) art out there, but I think we both agree they are few and far between in comparison to the art of 2e and 1e.

My pick for 3e image though would have to be the painting of the adventurers coming upon what looks like the Caves of Chaos, from the PHB2 (I think). My favourite art in D&D has pretty much always been about quiet moments of discovery (like the cover painting on the Al-Qadim boxed set! That woman looking out over the city....)

 

[Aldarc]

Again, that is essentially a change in the market; the gaming industry- not a change in the game itself.

Again, that change in the gaming industry affected the development of the game itself. Many changes in the game itself (namely optional rulings provided in splat books) came from pressures in the gaming industry market. They were already out there, but WotC were being pushed by those market forces to integrate those changes into their own game in order to be more competitive.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Many changes in the game itself (namely optional rulings provided in splat books) came from pressures in the gaming industry market.

Most changes in each & every edition of D&D came from pressure exerted by competitors in the gaming market (clones or even radically different systems), and appeared in the market well before the OGL: non-Vancian casting (most other FRPGs pre-OGL), introducing a skill system (most other FRPGs pre-OGL), pruning & diluting the alignment system (most other FRPGs pre-OGL), modular deconstruction of classes into builds (HERO & GURPS pre-OGL). All had their origins in the competition, either as emulations or reactions & improvements to those other games' ideas.

The existence of the OGL didn't fundamentally change the nature of how competitors ideas influenced design changes in D&D, it just made companies abide by certain agreed-upon rules to avoid legal action and generally foster a "buddy-buddy" atmosphere as opposed to previous material which was almost always hiding behind language like "suitable for any fantasy role-playing game!"

The pressure was there all along. You don't think the rise in popularity towards the end of TSR's run of game's like WoD, HERO and GURPS affected WotC's design of 3Ed?

 

[scourger]

As someone who played a lot of high-level 3E and is now playing 21st level 4E, I don't have that impression. Hit points and other numbers might start higher, but the progression upwards is slower, and you don't have the wackiness that is the Constitution bonus of 3E.

That may be. My 4e play is limited and low level, plus running Gamma World now. But the little 4e we played at low levels sure felt like the numbers were increased a lot. 3e got unmanageable at higher levels, so if 4e flattens out as I've heard from your post and others, then that is a good thing. I'll probably never expereince it, though; unless they revive the Ravenloft RPG or develop another D&D game along the lines of Gamma World (which I hope WotC will do).

 

[Firebeetle]

I don't know how anyone could choose anything by 4e here. Especially if you compare D&D with other role playing games. :

Since D&D was created, as the initial RPG, it has been playing catch up. 2nd edition was definitely too little, too late. GURPS, Champions, ICE, were far more complex. Small publisher RPGs were more complex.

3rd edition was a larger change, but this was simply bringing D&D up to speed. There were still many holdovers to the old system, like hit dice, rolling stats, creating magic items, vancian magic, a player's handbook with a majority page count about magic spells.

4th edition is the first time a D&D edition reaches past the competition and innovates into the future.

No hit dice
No rolling attributes
No penalties for attributes in race
Each class has a roughly equal place in the PHB
Each class has a broad range of options
Named roles for a party
Miniature movement, no more "Rodney King" playing (the players surround and beat up the monster)
PC team vs Monster team combats
Skill challenges
Level up magic items
Saving throws are fundamentally changed
Defenses and saving throws are mixed together


For me as a DM, it's the first DM friendly edition

Schema for making encounters (I can do it on the fly, so cool)
Monster making is a simpler ruleset than making PCs (I once spent three hours making a boss that got finished in three rounds with lousy rolls)
Monsters stat blocks are designed to be READ!
Monsters have a handful of cool things to do. No more looking up spell-like effects and crap.

4e is easily the most innovative edition ever. Everything was rethought on a basic level. Love it or hate it (I love it, personally), it's been the greatest game changer ever.

 

[FireLance]

Monsters are no longer built off the same skeletons as characters

I'd just like to comment on this one. Arguably, monsters and PCs sharing the same design was a change that occurred between 2e and 3e. Prior to 3e, monsters (excluding humanoid NPCs) didn't even have ability scores, and consequently, no Constitution bonuses to hit points, Dexterity bonuses to AC, or (apart from a few rare cases) Strength bonuses to attack and damage rolls.

 

[Dice4Hire]

I'd just like to comment on this one. Arguably, monsters and PCs sharing the same design was a change that occurred between 2e and 3e. Prior to 3e, monsters (excluding humanoid NPCs) didn't even have ability scores, and consequently, no Constitution bonuses to hit points, Dexterity bonuses to AC, or (apart from a few rare cases) Strength bonuses to attack and damage rolls.

Neither did PCs, unless they had ridiculously high stats.