Which edition change changed the game the most?

[MerricB]

Fourth edition did away with hit dice. You can ramble on all you want about how Vancian magic is the big sacred cow, but let's not forget here that 4e is the first version of D&D ever where the troll cannot be described as a "6-HD monster." That's a game-changer, people.

It's funny: I don't think of that at all these days when I think of changes in the game to 4E. I think it's because the function of "hit dice" was

(a) subverted and broken so horribly in 3E, and
(b) Monster Level is basically Hit Dice, and far more informative.

Cheers!

 

[Beginning of the End]

Actually, that progresssion (AD&D1 - 2, etc.) isn't explicitly present in the original post, and I gathered from it that he was essentially arguing that a 10th-level Fighter (or Fighting Man) didn't change much at all from Basic all the way up through 3rd.

A rather gross (and almost nonsensical) misreading of his post. It's possible he was implicitly including OD&D in his post, but there are no 10th level elves to be found there, either.

Perhaps you're unaware that the game bifurcated in 1977?

The original poster wrote: "...now convert from up (sic) one version from the one immediatly (sic) before". There are two paths you can follow with that:

OD&D -> Holmes -> Moldvay/Cook/Marsh -> BECMI -> Rules Cyclopedia
OD&D -> AD&D1 -> AD&D2 -> D&D3 -> D&D4

In the latter track (which is what the OP was explicitly talking about), there are no 10th level elves.

In the former track, 10th level elves first appear in Moldvay/Cook/Marsh. Converting to BECMI and then to the Rules Cyclopedia would consist of saying, "My 10th level elf is a 10th level elf." both times.

Hardly the impossible conundrum Cirno suggests.

Recall that the original AD&D Bard class was, essentially, the first Prestige Class, and required you to first level as the other classes specified before you could "start over" as a Bard.

That was, in fact, exactly what I was recalling.

But, oddly, this poses no real difficulty in converting your AD&D1 Bard to AD&D2. You've got a Fighter 5/Thief 5/Bard 5. How do you convert that to AD&D2? It's a straight-up dual-class.

Wham. Bam. Done.

Multiclassed AD&D demi-humans are probably the one example of 3E having a conversion conundrum: You can either choose to model the original abilities of the character or the hit point total of the character, but not both.

Yep - so it's odd to pick 4Ed as the "break point" given that a fairly substantial break point occured the edition previous

The OP explicitly said the conversion might require some decision-making.

Equating "there's one case where fixing a broken rule causes the conversion of an AD&D2 to D&D3 character to be slightly complicated" to "every single character needs to be re-designed from the ground-up" is like saying that D&D3 and D&D4 are identical because D&D3 barbarians had that one encounter-based class ability.

It's a blatantly false equivalence.

 

[GreyLord]

3e changed the most rules. The biggest change in those rules however was changing it from D&D to Rolemaster Lite. Made a TON of Ex-D&D players who hated classes delighted to call a rolemaster like game...D&D. Not that it mattered, the numbers playing AD&D had shrunk significantly by that point. There were more Ex-D&D players than active and admitted AD&D and D&D players combined.

HOWEVER...the BIGGEST change which part of this post I put in that thread (so if you read it...I'll put a divider where I have other things to say). It's pretty hard to say whether it was between 0D&D and it's supplements (Greyhawk changed the world and how it was run...almost literally...many wouldn't recognize 0D&D as the D&D today...they would recognize it after Greyhawk though).

Something else that was a slower change, more in the minds of players rather than the game system was between 0D&D and AD&D as it came to be in the mid to late 80s. Originally, via the wargaming ideas, characters that were low levels were exceptional. They were better than many of the other monsters and people of the world around them. This idea was even found in BECMI...as you can see...a first level fighter isn't some new novice...he's a freaking veteran. They are trained and experienced.

However, somewhere along the way, they became freaking newbies just wet behind the ears...not really trained, and ready to die. This is exemplified by 3.X's take on what a character starts off as.

The older thought process had the idea that it took years just to get to 1st level. Because of that, it was incredibly hard to get levels in another class you didn't start with.

In 3e it was a matter of a simple decision at a level up...or became that. In some ways 4e, with it's feat system has made a return to having the heroes having a slightly tougher time training...as well as starting the heroes as deadly trained warriors instead of some newbie fresh off the boat who hasn't seen a sword before a month ago when they finally got trained on it.

Another massive change was AD&D/0D&D supplemented (that's with the supplements inclusive of Greyhawk, etc.) and BX and BECMI D&D. Races that were classes (even if they simulated what was played previously) and some other items were pretty big changes.

The biggest concept change was probably 3e however. It changed from class as solely the archtype, to where class could be a symbolic thing you dipped into. This of course is a rules change reflected more by the change in through processes in previous editions rather than the rules.

The rules changes are numerous however in many of the editions. Between core 0D&D (without supplements) to AD&D would perhaps be almost equal to the number of changes between AD&D 2e core and 3e. Hard to say though.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

4e is actually a refined version of 3.X edition. It's hard for those who started with 3.X to actually see that, but 4e keeps the core ideas of 3.X going strong. It uses the ascending AC and a whole host of other things from 3.X to the point that it's EXTREMELY EASY TO RUN a 4e game as a 3.X game. In fact I once pushed some rules ideas for those who wanted to do such a thing...but got it shot down by people stating if they wanted a 3.5 game, they'd play 3.5...they didn't play 4e simply to rehash an older edition.

Because of that, I see those stating 4e as the biggest change...rather deluded by how drastic the changes were for 3.X and it's differences to previous D&D editions.

~ so anyone who disagrees with you is 'rather deluded' and clearly incapable of critical thinking? That's an exit from the thread for you. Plane Sailing, Admin ~

If anything, 4e took a step BACKWARDS towards what older D&D editions were, with as mentioned previously, making class once more heroic at first level (though this was as I also previously mentioned, more of a change of mental though...with the heroic trained veteran an idea originally given...but changing in the minds of players...rather than the rules...at least prior to 3e...to one of a guy fresh off the boat and wet behind the ears later on), and making it harder to change classes. The archtype once more became king.

4e ADDED to the already onerous rules of 3e in some ways. Thief skills remained among the skills of players...just like 3e...and feats were still included...just like 3e. However 4e added powers for EVERY class.

3.X had started the change in vancian casters (just like 2.5 had started the change in class as an archtype as classified in rules rather than just in player's minds). First up you had an increase in the actual number of spells a Wizard could cast. Wizards originally were pretty limited with their number of spells at low levels they could cast per day. This made for many unhappy ex-D&D players. This changed in 3.X so that casters got MANY MORE spells at 1st level on up. 0 level spells actually got some oomph, and some of the original 1st level spells were among them. Sorcerers changed it even further, with even MORE spells available (and at that point, with how much some would be able to use spells, it became more a matter of why even have a spell limit), even if with a smaller selection. Then came the Warlocks...

What is more significant is the change in mindset that started to occur with some of the players. The idea that once the caster was out of spells, the party simply rested till the next day kicked in. At that point, is that really Vancian casting? It's basically what 4e does to a degree...though you'd have even MORE 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th...etc. level spells (though with 4e you'll have unlimited 1st level spells...well...with the number you can choose from). This wasn't really codified in the rules per se...but it started to happen...and once it did...it paved the way for the removal of a strict Vancian system (though it exists in a limited form in 4e...though you could say that with all daily powers for all classes in 4e...suddenly the fighter can't perform a combat maneuver...or a rogue forgets how he can do this little stealthy move) in 4e.

I think rules wise, 3e wins...though it's VERY CLOSE with the changes between 0D&D core and what came later (especially once GreyHawk kicks in, and 0D&D compared to AD&D...totally different beasts...I'd say as different as 1e is to 3e...maybe even 1e compared to 4e).

The differences between each edition however is harder to say simply because I think it involves more of a mindset of the gamers rather than simply how rules were written. There was a slow but steady change in how the game was percieved...so wargamers who started the hobby in the 70's would have a different perception from that point, then what others...or even they, may have by the mid 80s.

I think the big shifts of mindsets came a little after the mid 80s, and around the mid 90s. These changed perceptions of archtypes, what a class was, what a level was, what skills were, and basic conceptions about what gaming was in general. These ideas were eventually codified into rules, but the ideas actually existed before those rules came about.

Much of what you see in 3e was already practiced by houserules, or thought of as a generally accepted idea prior to them being written down for 3e. Even if I might consider it rolemaster lite in some ways, and call it D20 Fantasy instead of D&D...it really was composed of many ideas that had already been circulating amongst D&D players (and many ex-D&D players) for YEARS.

These were massive changes. 3e just codified them.

In that light, as far as codifying a changed mindset...I think 3e is the biggest change simply because it made it so that these ideas collected for the past 20 years were suddenly codified. No other edition had to collect such changes in the gamer's mindset from such a long period (4e only collected that of a subset of gamers from the past 8 years, as opposed to 2 decades. 2e didn't do as much to change the game as some suppose. 0D&D to AD&D had some major changes...as the game was still being formed in many ways...but still the timeline wasn't quite as huge as far as the perceptions of gaming).

Okay, it turned out lengthy anyways...sorry about that.

PS: And to make a lenthy analysis even longer...obviously...the biggest difference of them all is between 0D&D and 4e...the game has changed so drastically in rules and player's thoughts between them...that's it's just about as vast as the differences between 0D&D and a non-D&D game system (though derived and called D&D by many)...that of Pathfinder. I think people have a hard time determining differences between the actual edition to edition...rather than their preconceptions of what changes are in relation to the game itself. By default...since they are both on the separate spectrums of time...0D&D and 4e are the most different...that's obvious. Ironically in some ways...thought wise...4e is actually CLOSER to 0D&D than 3.X though. And people are calling 4e the biggest change...which I see as...ironic. If it's any consolation...I don't think Gygax would have preferred or liked 4e either. But that's my opinion.

For the record...I play 3.5...and I also like 4e...at least currently.

 

[Siberys]

Weapon attacks are hardly the same as an At-Will. They even distinguish that in 4Ed. At-Wills do stuff basic weapon attacks simply don't do.

And At-Will SLAs are pretty rare- again, usually the province of races, not classes.

Eh, you're getting into semantics there. I was referring to 3.x, and in 3.x, all weapon attacks were essentially the same - at-will basic attacks, for lack of a better term - that were modified by feats and occasionally class features.

Greylord covers my points in significantly more detail, though. That's what I was getting at, in the end.

 

[Dice4Hire]

Fourth edition did away with hit dice. You can ramble on all you want about how Vancian magic is the big sacred cow, but let's not forget here that 4e is the first version of D&D ever where the troll cannot be described as a "6-HD monster." That's a game-changer, people.

6HD, level 6 brute. No difference to me.

 

[Reynard]

As Prof. C. has pointed out, the 1gp = 1xp rule disappeared when 2E debuted. (IIRC, it was an optional rule in the 2E DMG).

::runs and checks 2E DMG::

So it is. Huh.

 

[Diamond Cross]

I haven't read 4e books so I can't say about 4e. But 3e was very different than the previous editions. To me 1st and 2nd editions weren't really all that different, except that 2nd edition introduced actual skills (called proficiencies) and the Psionicist as a complete class in the Psionics Handbook. Although in 2e they weren't required for your character. In 1e there weren't really these kind of skills.

3e streamlined a lot of things such as reducing the number of saving throws to 3 and getting rid of To Hit Armor Class Zero or Thaco (some pronounce it like taco btw).

There are still many things that I miss about 1e, such as the mining rules in the Dungeoneer's Survival Guide and the way the artifacts were set up in 1e DMG. And the original critical hit and fumble rules that appeared in the old Dragon Magazine.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I've never found the "converting characters" measurement very compelling. It is somewhat compelling when coverting characters is as easy as it is from 1E to 2E (at least for most of the characters). But if it gets to be any more troublesome than that, then it is a distinction without a difference to me.

Ask me if I want to fall off a the deck or off the third story roof, then I find the deck very compelling. Ask me if I want to drop 5,000 feet or 6,000 feet onto concrete, I really don't have a preference. If you want to argue that the 6,000 feet was more like 15,000 feet, or that I can get to terminal velocity with a much shorter fall than even 5,000--it still doesn't change my answer. I pick C, have a parachute.

Converting from 2E to 3E or 3E to 4E, I've got no preference. I"ll just start over, reimagine the characters with only a thin nod to their roots, or if fidelity matters that much to me, stick with the current system for those characters.

 

[scourger]

3e for many of the reasons mentioned but also for the huge leap in development that was the d20 system with its license and OGL. The portability of the game to other genres was a vast difference over prior editions where there were some conversions and cross-overs but no ability to transfer the game engine to a different setting altogether. The 3e DMG even had optional rules for high-tech weapons which could enable the core game to be played in a different genre altogether from high-magic medieval fantasy. I can think of at least 10 d20 derivative games off the top of my head that we played with d20 rules and enjoyed to varying degrees. Some I would play again in a minute given the opportunity. For me, no other game comes close to that kind of portability except for a deck of cards.

That portability and the completeness of the game are the reasons that I still have my 3e PHB, DMG & MM. I keep the 3.5 versions for similar reasons, but 3.5 is just not the same. 4e feels like an entirely different game but mechanically it feels like 3e with the numbers increased. Prior editions were playable and easily ungraded, but 3e advanced the whole system fundamentally and radically.

 

[MerricB]

4e feels like an entirely different game but mechanically it feels like 3e with the numbers increased.

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.

Cheers!