Which edition change changed the game the most?

[Imaro]

I voted for 4e since IMO, the mechanical changes + the changes to the fluff which isn't based on any previous version or world of D&D are just more than 3e's changes to just the mechanics.

One thing I find weird and I'd love for someone to explain... are the claims of 3e "HERO'izing" D&D. As I remember it this was exactly the path AD&D was on before WotC took over D&D, it's like everyone is ignoring those Player's Options books that came out for AD&D 2nd edition... if anything was the start of the HERO'izing of AD&D, along with the build mentality, I think it was those books, not 3e. It's one of the reasons I feel 3e didn't diverge away from what D&D was in the version before it as much as 4e did.

 

[Beginning of the End]

Lookl at it this way. Take a 10th level fighter, now convert from up one version from the one immediatly before.

There are no real changes until you go from 1st edition to 2nd, then there are a few changes and you might take 30 minutes to decide.

Go from 2nd to 3rd and you could spend a couple hours depending on if you convert some level to a PrC and how long you debate feats.

Now upgrade to 4E. Okay I have my class and my character name. Everything else I basically read through 4E and create all new. Only the most basic flavor focus of my character carries over.

Take a tenth level elf.

You're responding to someone talking about transition from AD&D1 to AD&D2, from AD&D2 to D&D3, and from D&D3 to D&D4. Where, exactly, are you finding a 10th level elf in those four systems?

Ok, take a tenth level human fighter/thief/druid/bard.

I'm fairly certain that's not a legal character option in any edition of the game.

Unless by "10th level" you just mean a character level to be divided in some arbitrary fashion among the four classes listed, in which case it's legal for the first time in 3E and, thus, doesn't pose any relevance to the guy you're replying to except insofar as it can't be converted to D&D4 (thus proving his point).

Ok, take a half-dragon fighter/thief/woodlands sniper/eye of gromash/exotic weapon master.

Ditto.

Ok, take a multiclassed elven fighter/mage.

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.

This is largely because AD&D multi-classing was functionally broken: Assuming you had the prerequisites, being multi-classed was superior in every way. (D&D3 multi-classing was arguably broken the other direction, with some class combinations being mechanically inferior. But that's a debate for a different thread.)

Now, 4E certainly changed the fluff and the balance between classes, and 2E changed the tone and led to "story" games. But it was 3E that fundamentally changed what gave PCs XP.

The shift from XP for treasure to XP for killing things--

It was 2E that did that.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

You're responding to someone talking about transition from AD&D1 to AD&D2, from AD&D2 to D&D3, and from D&D3 to D&D4. Where, exactly, are you finding a 10th level elf in those four systems?

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.

So, a 10th-level Elf absolutely fits in the progression, in that it starts as an Elf, turns into a Fighter / Magic-User, and then ... ?

I'm fairly certain that's not a legal character option in any edition of the game.

Unless by "10th level" you just mean a character level to be divided in some arbitrary fashion among the four classes listed

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.

Bards in First Edition AD&D were a special class unavailable for character creation. A character could become a bard only after meeting specific and difficult requirements, achieving levels in multiple character classes, becoming a bard only later. The process of becoming a bard in the First Edition was very similar to what would later be standardized in D&D as the prestige class — in fact, the First Edition bard eventually became the Fochlucan Lyrist Prestige class in the Third Edition supplement Complete Adventurer.

To become a bard, a human or half-elf had to begin with very high ability scores: Strength 15+, Wisdom 15+, Dexterity 15+ and Charisma 15+, Intelligence 12+ and Constitution 10+. These daunting requirements made bards one of the rarest character classes. Bards began the game as fighters, and after achieving 5th level (but before reaching 8th level), they had to dual-class as a thief, and after reaching 5th level as a thief (but before reaching 9th level), they had to dual-class again to druid. Once becoming a druid, the character then progressed as a bard.

Bards gained a limited number of druid spells, and could be any alignment that was neutral on at least one axis. Because of the nature of dual-classing in AD&D, bards had the combined abilities of both fighters and thieves, in addition to their newly acquired lore, druidic spells, all level dependent druidic abilities, additional languages known, a special ability to know legendary information about magic items they may encounter, and a percentage chance to automatically charm any creature that hears the bard's magical music. Because bards must have first acquired levels as fighter and thief, they are more powerful at first level than any other class.

Ergo, it's a valid criticism of the previous poster's point that "I can convert Fighters between editions really easily, ergo 4th is the first real break."

Well, sure, you sorta can, but there were numerous breaks all throughout the evolution of the game where characters could not be converted easily.

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 (and, as mentioned, there were break points previous to that, as well, that the previous poster glossed over).

 

[Ourph]

I'm with Merric. Where is the option for Supplement I, Greyhawk? Unquestionably the biggest edition change in D&D history and the push that got the whole splatbook/edition churn ball rolling.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

One thing I find weird and I'd love for someone to explain... are the claims of 3e "HERO'izing" D&D. As I remember it this was exactly the path AD&D was on before WotC took over D&D, it's like everyone is ignoring those Player's Options books that came out for AD&D 2nd edition... if anything was the start of the HERO'izing of AD&D, along with the build mentality, I think it was those books, not 3e. It's one of the reasons I feel 3e didn't diverge away from what D&D was in the version before it as much as 4e did.

You are correct about the start of it. If you want to see the presumed end state to that, search around for some of Sean Reynolds complaints about 4E and how he would have done it. He pretty much advocated the conscious HERO'izing of D&D.

2E was when it started. However, 3E was when you couldn't ignore it.

 

[Imaro]

2E was when it started. However, 3E was when you couldn't ignore it.

Oh, I totally agree with this, and I'm not saying either one or the other is better... but I find it odd that it's cited by some as 3e drastically moving away from previous editions by some when that was exactly where the game was headed before 3e was created. Just saying...

 

[Shemeska]

4e hands down, what with its ecstatic slaughtering of "sacred cows".

Rules changes at a fundamental level and the retcon or deletion of massive amounts of flavor and basic creatures and concepts that had been built upon sequentially for three previous editions.

3e might come marginally close in terms of rules changes compared to 1e and 2e rules, but nothing else comes even remotely close to the changes in flavor text and basic D&D tropes as 4e tried to push through.

 

[Siberys]

I know it's been moved past, but weapon attacks, at-will SLAs, and some of the later class' class features (warlock eldritch blast, frex) are specifically what I was referring to.

 

[Jack Daniel]

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.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I know it's been moved past, but weapon attacks, at-will SLAs, and some of the later class' class features (warlock eldritch blast, frex) are specifically what I was referring to.

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.