Crazy Jerome, not only is your house rule transparent, but it was made offical in Essentials! (Well, not quite, but almost - unless and advantage is in play, then the second use of the same skill by the same character in the same skill challenge increases in difficulty from Moderate to Hard.)
Which edition change changed the game the most?
- Thread starter Aberzanzorax
- Start date
Crazy Jerome
First Post
pemerton, I missed that in essentials. I'm applying this to all skill checks, and it is cumulative. We've got plenty of times where a second try just makes sense, but I wanted the group to be desperate to go for a third try (+10 DC). Plus, it makes backup characters feel loved. 
Last edited:
Glade Riven
Adventurer
I voted for 3e. Granted, the bulk of my experiance is with 3.5+, but here's my reasoning:
While each version altered the industry, I believe 3e altered it the most. It took a dying brand, breathed new life into it, and (through Pathfinder) is still alive.
A major point in this is that 3e/3.5 has something called the Open Game License. From an intellectual property standpoint, the OGL is counter intuitive to how IP is managed in almost any business. It was a risky move that lead to industry dominace allowing for some rather creative bits of compatability. With 4e we lost that, but that is more of a return to the status quo. It was also good for the industry as it brought about a diversification - more people who started with 3e/3.5 have at least looked at other systems (that's another topic). Plus, Bo9S makes 4e a little less revolutionary.
The OGL allowed for independent publishers to spring up and contribute to D&D with third party products. Some are good, many are terrible, but the OGL gave greater access Would EnWorld exist as it is without the OGL? I doubt it.
So, because I consider the OGL the greatest game-changer, I voted for 3e.
While each version altered the industry, I believe 3e altered it the most. It took a dying brand, breathed new life into it, and (through Pathfinder) is still alive.
A major point in this is that 3e/3.5 has something called the Open Game License. From an intellectual property standpoint, the OGL is counter intuitive to how IP is managed in almost any business. It was a risky move that lead to industry dominace allowing for some rather creative bits of compatability. With 4e we lost that, but that is more of a return to the status quo. It was also good for the industry as it brought about a diversification - more people who started with 3e/3.5 have at least looked at other systems (that's another topic). Plus, Bo9S makes 4e a little less revolutionary.
The OGL allowed for independent publishers to spring up and contribute to D&D with third party products. Some are good, many are terrible, but the OGL gave greater access Would EnWorld exist as it is without the OGL? I doubt it.
So, because I consider the OGL the greatest game-changer, I voted for 3e.
DumbPaladin
First Post
It's funny how this poll seemed to turn into a 3E vs. 4E vote.
Strangely, while I think the 4th Edition changes completely made D&D no longer a game aimed at me or people like me, I actually think 3rd edition changed the game more ... so I voted for that.
Strangely, while I think the 4th Edition changes completely made D&D no longer a game aimed at me or people like me, I actually think 3rd edition changed the game more ... so I voted for that.
Lanefan
Victoria Rules
I've been assuming Core to Core.
The best "official" (i.e. put out by TSR/WotC) D+D art I've seen in many a year was in "Worlds and Monsters", the 4e preview book.Wik said:
I was woefully disappointed when the actual 4e product didn't follow the trend thus set.
Lan-"but it's still better than 3e steampunk"-efan
Lanefan
Victoria Rules
Not really; as those releases were by far the two biggest changes the game has seen it's no surprise at all they're getting almost all the votes between them...
...including this one, it would seem.
Lanefan
Lanefan said:Not really; as those releases were by far the two biggest changes the game has seen it's no surprise at all they're getting almost all the votes between them...
...including this one, it would seem.
Lanefan
Plus, my guess would be that a significant majority of EN Worlders are far more familiar with 3e & 4e than earlier editions.
RandallS
Explorer
While I could make a case for 3.5 being the edition that changed things the most, I finally decided that it was 4th edition, for the following reasons:
From OD&D through AD&D2e (including all D&D editions through RC), the differences between the various systems were so minor that characters could easily be moved between editions with a few minutes effort -- and adventures written for one edition could be used with any of those edition, often with little or no advance conversion by the GM. (The Player's Option books did make huge changes, but they were all OPTIONAL. No changes were made to the core rules.)
With 3.0, character conversion from previous editions became somewhat more complex if you wanted to be true to the character, but adventures from older editions were still easily usable (and vice versa, 3.0 adventures were easy to use with older editions). 3.5 changed a lot of spells and made it harder to do without minis and battlemats, but characters and adventures from all previous editions were still usable without a complete rewrite.
I can run either of my two homebrew campaign worlds and my versions the Wilderlands of High Fantasy, Greyhawk, and the Forgotten Realms in any of the edition through 3.5 without having to make major changes to the campaign world to accommodate rules differences.
4e breaks all of this. It is almost impossible to convert characters from previous editions without completely re-imaging them. It is impossible to convert non-combat-focused characters viable in all previous editions of the game; they cannot even be created in 4e as the gamesystem forced all characters to be combat-based ability-wise. Neither of my homebrew campaigns can be converted at all as they depend on the existence of powerful non-combatants and spells, magic items, etc. that have either been eliminated or changed beyond recognition. The Wilderlands, Greyhawk and the Forgotten Realms could only be used with such major re-imaging that they seem to be completely different worlds.
Judging by the above, it's obvious that 4e changed the game the most in ways that affect my gaming. In many ways, it feels like a completely new gamesystem using the D&D name.
For the record, I've played in and/or ran games in every edition of the D&D over the years, so I'm speaking from my own experiences.
From OD&D through AD&D2e (including all D&D editions through RC), the differences between the various systems were so minor that characters could easily be moved between editions with a few minutes effort -- and adventures written for one edition could be used with any of those edition, often with little or no advance conversion by the GM. (The Player's Option books did make huge changes, but they were all OPTIONAL. No changes were made to the core rules.)
With 3.0, character conversion from previous editions became somewhat more complex if you wanted to be true to the character, but adventures from older editions were still easily usable (and vice versa, 3.0 adventures were easy to use with older editions). 3.5 changed a lot of spells and made it harder to do without minis and battlemats, but characters and adventures from all previous editions were still usable without a complete rewrite.
I can run either of my two homebrew campaign worlds and my versions the Wilderlands of High Fantasy, Greyhawk, and the Forgotten Realms in any of the edition through 3.5 without having to make major changes to the campaign world to accommodate rules differences.
4e breaks all of this. It is almost impossible to convert characters from previous editions without completely re-imaging them. It is impossible to convert non-combat-focused characters viable in all previous editions of the game; they cannot even be created in 4e as the gamesystem forced all characters to be combat-based ability-wise. Neither of my homebrew campaigns can be converted at all as they depend on the existence of powerful non-combatants and spells, magic items, etc. that have either been eliminated or changed beyond recognition. The Wilderlands, Greyhawk and the Forgotten Realms could only be used with such major re-imaging that they seem to be completely different worlds.
Judging by the above, it's obvious that 4e changed the game the most in ways that affect my gaming. In many ways, it feels like a completely new gamesystem using the D&D name.
For the record, I've played in and/or ran games in every edition of the D&D over the years, so I'm speaking from my own experiences.
I disagree. I think that this is a mistake by people not reading the full section of the DMG on Encounters. If you read the 3.0 DMG (can't state whether of not this is true of 3.5), it gives two types of encounters: tailored and Status quo
Tailored: You take into account the party"s abilities and that of the opposition
Status Quo: Things exist in the world without concern for the PCs level. The player's have to adapt to them. They know the 20 HD big bad Dragon exists in the swamp even when the PCs are first level. It is their decision to go after it or avoid it. (note: The actual example was the bugbears known to exist in a specific location regardless of the party's level).
The DMG tells the DM that they should warn players if they are *only* going to use status quo encounters (emphasis on only is mine).
I don't see the above much different than previous editions with wandering encounters in the wilderness or placing monsters at specific locations at the beginning of the campaign and adventures for party of level x. They just give you more explicit guidelines rather than leaving it entirely up to the DM or designer to figure it out entirely on their own..
Granted, there is a section of the DMG that goes further into discussing tailoring adventures, because the designers don't know your group or the exact party composition. However, it does not eliminate that option of status quo encounters and, since you are only supposed to warn the players if you wil not be using any tailored encounters, I think it is fair to say you are assumed to be using a mix of both.
Furthermore, when designing encounters for an adventure, the DMG gives a break down of various difficulties. 5% are recommended to be Ovewhelming which is ECL 5+ higher than the party. The DM is then told that the party needs to run or they will most likely lose. There is nothing balanced about this.
Last edited:
Similar Threads
