Which edition change changed the game the most?

[cyderak]

4E turned the "Fluff" of D&D on its ass. Killed off every iconic character that I thought was cool just by simply dying of old age because when they designed 4E they fast forwarded 200 years into the future. The fluff was the epitomy of, "If it aint broke, don't fix it".
Not to mention the 4E mechanics, in my opinion, are an o.k. rules system but are just not D&D. Should have just used 4E mechanics for Gamma World and gone the Pathfinder route by basically creating D&D 3.75.

Oh well. Hindsight is 20/20. Lookin back its still a bit fuzzy.

For a while there i was, for censorship sake, angered. But after a while I saw the up-sides of Pathfinder.

1.) My favorite game system (D&D 3.5) is in the hands of a company who listens to their fans. But at the same time passing on the gamer advice that just screams of "lack of common sense". In short, Smart decision making.

2.) Its not owned by a huge conglomerate bent on making quantity over quality when it comes to books. I'd rather have 4, really awesome, thoroughly play-tested books come out in a year than 20 rush-job books to choose from.

3.) I am a "Covert Gamer". Meaning, I don't profess it to the world that I play an RPG. Everyone i know outside my game group is very judgemental and it isn't worth the argument. My wife is very understanding. My kids don't really understand why, or even what we are doing. So when I say, "I play Pathfinder". People just think its a boardgame. Who am I to correect them.

4.) I'm gonna have to take a mulligan on the whole "Fluff" factor. Its a new setting, which is basically where i'd be if I stayed with D&D 4th ed.

It'll be interesting to see where it all goes. 4E and Pathfinder, whether we like it or not, will always be compared to each other. For obvious reasons. If we all just respect everyones choice to play whatever game they want to play and their opinions on the subject, we're good to go.

 

[Dungeoneer]

I think it's telling that most of what people would consider the 'big' changes, whether introduced in third or fourth edition, show up fairly recently in the history of D&D. The fact is, the game is almost forty years old. It would be more surprising if it didn't change.

 

[Stormonu]

I chose 4E, but I certainy could see why many would choose 3E. While 4E had large mechanical shifts (and stirred up fluff) 3E changed a lot of perceptions toward the game - removing many "restrictive" elements such as class/level/alignment restrictions, a permissive attutude towards purchasing and making magic items and even removing downsides to many spells (such as aging with Haste). 3E was strongly typed towards standardization and defining situations, where previous editions were more about providing a skeletal framework with a lot of places open for interpretation.

 

[Siberys]

A note about AEDU; this is another point where the change wasn't actually all that drastic from previous editions.

3e had at-will powers. It had dailies (a lot more than 4e, but that's a design thing). It even had encounter powers, though they weren't ever called such and they were few and far between. For that matter, there were a lot of utilities; their gain and usefullness were just very varied.

It would not at all surprise me to find the same of older editions. All 4e did was codify it and unify the design. Just thought that that might further illustrate the point I'm going for.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

3e had at-will powers. It had dailies (a lot more than 4e, but that's a design thing). It even had encounter powers, though they weren't ever called such and they were few and far between. For that matter, there were a lot of utilities; their gain and usefullness were just very varied.

I'm afraid I can't agree with that description of 3Ed. At-wills? Encounter powers? Where? Daily powers were largely racial abilities.

 

[Stormonu]

I'm afraid I can't agree with that description of 3Ed. At-wills? Encounter powers? Where? Daily powers were largely racial abilities.

Agreed, I can see daily powers as spells in 3e and before, but not encounter powers. And at-wills are dodgy. Yes, you might try and classify trip or "swing my sword" as an at-will, but unlike 4E, you don't have to select a certain power to use that ability.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I can see daily powers as spells in 3e

I can't even be that charitable- for a spell to be a daily, you can't have a bonus spell due to stats and must have just made a level, because otherwise, you've pretty much got at least 2 castings.

 

[TanisFrey]

In late 3.5 there were a couple of books that used encounter powers. This books were clearing trying out a game mechanic being developed for 4ed before it was announced but while they were developing it. The skill tricks in Complete Scoundrel and the some of the combat maneuvers in the Book of Nine Swords can be considered "encounter powers" in 3.5.

Looking back it was clear that they were testing the water with these game concepts.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Yeah...granted. But that's WAY late in the game's history and hardly a central design mechanic. That covers, what, 5% of the classes in the game?

The skill tricks could have been bigger if introduced earlier in the game's cycle, but as things stand now, I've never seen a single PC use 'em. YMMV, of course.

 

[Stoat]

"The Barbarian can fly into a rage only once per encounter." -d20srd.org

That's the only thing that immediately comes to mind, although some of the Bard's powers look a little like encounter powers (they last long enough to cover an entire combat once you use them, and once you can use them more than two or three times a day, you can use them in just about every combat you engage in).

That said, I don't really think you can say 4E's AEDU system is anything but a dramatic change from the way things had been done before. There might be hints and signs in the way some 3.X classes were set up, but that's all.