Didn't living Greyhawk in 3rd ed have non-random hitpoints? Wouldn't that mean that 4th ed didn't actually introduce it?
A houserule doesn't mean anything for this argument. No matter how "official" Living Greyhawk may or may not have been, if they had non-random hit points it was a house rule. Non-random hit points were not part of 3ed core.
Now, before someone comes here saying "But you use house rules all the times in an argument." That's true, but I use them to show how easy it is to make an edition work properly, not as any sort of indication of what's different in two different core settings.
I have to disagree. Turning saves into ARMOR CLASS, is not keeping it a save. It's a complete change in mechanics. The closest thing to it in 3ed were spells with touch and ranged touch rolls required.
Absolutely it is keeping it the same. You claim that THACO to BAB is the same... yet it changed via an inversion. Then you claim that saving throw to defense, despite being little more than an inversion, is different? Double standard.
No. Feats adding to your to hit =/= base attack, nor is there any sort of base attack in 4ed. What there is, is a half your level bonus to just about everything INCLUDING attack rolls, but it is not something separate for combat, like base attack was.
A base attack bonus is little more than a term used to describe the basic attack bonus all characters get to their to hit roll based on level. This description, while not explicitly used by the 4e books, is equally applicable to 4e's to hit mechanic of all classes adding 1/2 their level to hit. Certainly, in 4e, all classes get an equal base attack bonus. Certainly, this is a change. But the change from 2e to 3e was no larger. Between 2e and 3e only two classes kept the same type of to hit progression. Between 3e and 4e about the same number of classes keep the same too hit progression. Its equivalent. The fact that 4e then expanded this mechanic to work in other areas, replacing such mechanics as skill points, is irrelevant. The basic core mechanic is the same as the basic core mechanic of 3e.
I disagree.
Then we will have to agree to disagree.
Hardly. In 2ed wizards gained new spells via scrolls, spell books, and other wizards. In 3ed wizards gained new spells via scrolls, spell books, other wizards AND 2 per level. Adding 2 per level hardly changed EVERYTHING about spell acquisition. The other notable change was in the number of spells per spell level you could "know".
See GreyLord's post. You are free to disagree that that is a change. But if you do so, then I disagree that the removal of the vancien system is a change. After all, 4e still has some per day spells. So what if it adds some per encounter and at will spells? Apparently 3e addition of adding 2 spells per level doesn't matter, why should those? What it really breaks down to is this: since we can't quantify which change is larger, due to a difference of opinion, all we are left with is this, both editions feature change.
Though usually not much.
Again, in your opinion. But, since our opinions differ, all we are left with is this: both editions feature change.
Not by enough to be worth mentioning. A -10 AC is the same as a 30 AC. The vast majority of armor classes will stay with 10 and 30, just like they stayed within 10 and -10 in 2ed.
I REALLY disagree with this.
Hardly. In no other edition has a fighter been as likely to miss at 20th level as he was at 15th, 10th, 5th, or 1st. 4ed is the one and only.
This statement requires a lot of assumptions which I don't agree with. But, I don't have the time to delve into them right now. Thing is, considering how each edition changed the likelihood that a character would hit or miss to some degree, even if we both assume that this statement is empirically true, its still not a fundamental change. The rogues of 3e were far more likely to hit then the thieves of 2e... equal change.
With regards to skills, yes. The difference is, I liked the change from 2ed to 3ed with regards to skills. I don't like the change from 3ed to 4ed. The change isn't greater, but it is one that I dislike.
I am not arguing with your personal taste. You have every right to dislike 4e if you choose to. What you don't have the right to do is try and state that 4e is empirically not D&D (unless you claim that all editions of D&D after OD&D are not D&D). Aside from being bad tact, you don't really have the evidence to support the claim.
The power system is a big clue in. There was nothing like it in 3ed. Oh, some classes had a power here and there and some of them were even daily, but the 4ed power system as a whole is a radical departure from any other edition.
I disagree. I have shown that at will powers, per encounter powers, and daily powers, all existed in 3e. All 4e does is change the organization of which class gets how many of what power. I don't consider this change to be fundamental. All it does is rebalance classes...
Epic destinies are completely new and different from anything else, even 3ed epic rules.
Static hit points per level is completely new as a core "rule".
No its not. Every edition of D&D except for 3e featured a period of static hit point generation. And, 3e even featured a campaign setting which altered the rule and removed all random hit point generation. Though, I admit, this campaign setting is not a core rule. Still, the inclusion of a period of non random generation in every edition but 3e is... and 3e choice to remove this period of generation is as much of change as 4e choice to remove the random period of hit point generation.
Completely new and different multi-classing. There were no changes that radical in the move from 2ed to 3ed.
Are you kidding. The "new and different" multiclassing of 4e is closer to 2e multiclassing then 3e is. 3e mechanic of a level equals a packet of class abilities is a HUGE step away from 2e philosophy of multiclassing... HUGE. Its closer to rolemaster than D&D. And, even if you don't agree with which philosophy is farther from 2e, it doesn't make an iota of difference. It doesn't change the fact that 4e "new and different" multiclassing is no more new and different than 3e multiclassing was from 2e (based on nothing more then pure mechanics).
All editions are "different games" from previous editions. With 4ed however, the change is so much greater, with completely redone mechanics and ways that the classes work and interact with the game environment, that it truly seems like a game that I can see with a name like Tunnels and Trolls, or any other game that is not D&D. With 2ed and 3ed, I would recognize those games as other incarnations of the 1ed I grew up playing. I'm not saying 4ed is not D&D, only that the system is much less like the previous editions than any other edition before it.
Purely based on your person opinion and perspective. It has no grounding in empirical fact. I am not saying you don't have the right to feel this way... but the fact that you feel this way does not make it true.
A houserule doesn't mean anything for this argument. No matter how "official" Living Greyhawk may or may not have been, if they had non-random hit points it was a house rule. Non-random hit points were not part of 3ed core.
This argument strayed along way from core a long time ago.. there have even been people bringing up the Skills and Powers books to support arguments...
Notice how i use the word argument instead of discussion? it stopped being a discussion a long long time ago..
If you have any 4E conceptual issues or rules that you would like help with feel free to PM me.
Cyber-Dave, you keep forgetting that 3rd is NOT completely random generation.
First level characters have static hit points.
That is true, and forces me to re-state my argument slightly. I personally find it kind of funny how you don't agree with their argument, but manage to do more to defend it then they do. :P
So, to state my point a little better:
4e removes all non random hit point generation, and replaces 3e max hit points at level one with a larger sum of hit points gained at level one. 3e removes the largest period of random hit point generation, and replaces it with max hit points at level one. 1-2e include two periods of hit point generation, a random period, and a non random period.
A houserule doesn't mean anything for this argument. No matter how "official" Living Greyhawk may or may not have been, if they had non-random hit points it was a house rule. Non-random hit points were not part of 3ed core.
Now, before someone comes here saying "But you use house rules all the times in an argument." That's true, but I use them to show how easy it is to make an edition work properly, not as any sort of indication of what's different in two different core settings.
If we are only accepting the inclusion of the core three books, I would like to posit yet one more MASSIVE change that 2e made from 3e. The skills mechanic. Unless you include skills and powers, 3e skill points was a HUGE change from 2e non weapon proficiency skill mechanics. HUGE.
Absolutely it is keeping it the same. You claim that THACO to BAB is the same... yet it changed via an inversion. Then you claim that saving throw to defense, despite being little more than an inversion, is different? Double standard.
Not at all. Changing a to hit roll bonus based on level to another type of hit roll bonus based on level is a lateral move. Changing a saving throw into armor class is not.
A base attack bonus is little more than a term used to describe the basic attack bonus all characters get to their to hit roll based on level.
True.
This description, while not explicitly used by the 4e books, is equally applicable to 4e's to hit mechanic of all classes adding 1/2 their level to hit.
False. Apparently it's like your innability to understand what random means. A bonus to ALL ROLLS based on level, is not = to a specific bonus ONLY to yoru to hit rolls based on level.
Certainly, in 4e, all classes get an equal base attack bonus.
Only if you ignore reality and/or try to re-define what base attack means.
See GreyLord's post. You are free to disagree that that is a change. But if you do so, then I disagree that the removal of the vancien system is a change. After all, 4e still has some per day spells. So what if it adds some per encounter and at will spells? Apparently 3e addition of adding 2 spells per level doesn't matter, why should those? What it really breaks down to is this: since we can't quantify which change is larger, due to a difference of opinion, all we are left with is this, both editions feature change.
What are you smoking? I didn't disagree that there were changes. I PROVED beyond a shadow of a doubt that the methods of acquiring spells from 2ed to 3ed not did not "change everything else about acquiring spells", but in fact kept most of them.
I REALLY disagree with this.
It's seriously your contention that most creatures had an AC lower than 10 or higher than 30 in 3ed, and that most creatures in 2ed had an AC if higher than 10 or lower than -10? You DO know what game we're talking about, right?
I disagree. I have shown that at will powers, per encounter powers, and daily powers, all existed in 3e. All 4e does is change the organization of which class gets how many of what power. I don't consider this change to be fundamental. All it does is rebalance classes...
By greatly changing how they work. That there were some "powers" is irrelevent. You can't seem to grasp that there are different degrees of things, and so you simply point at a minor change and a major one and say "Look, since they both had changes, they're equal."
No its not. Every edition of D&D except for 3e featured a period of static hit point generation.
And none of that made any other edition have static hit point gain. See, what you aren't getting is this. If in 1ed, fighters at 10th level and above only gained 2 hit points per level, then a 20th level fighter would have 9d10+22 hit points. Assuming no con bonus or penalty, that leaves all fighters with a random number of hit points ranging from 31-112 hit points. Every last fighter made in 1ed, 2ed, and 3ed with hit points according to core "rules" had random hit points.
And, 3e even featured a campaign setting which altered the rule and removed all random hit point generation. Though, I admit, this campaign setting is not a core rule.
Exactly. It was a house rule specific to that campaign setting. All changes to core in any campaign setting that WoTC puts out are house rules that they've made to those settings via rule 0. None of them changes core.
Are you kidding. The "new and different" multiclassing of 4e is closer to 2e multiclassing then 3e is.
You mean 2ed where I got full use of both classes, or even all THREE classes if I was a half-elf? That's JUST like 4ed's innability to have full use of even one class, let alone two extra classes.
That is true, and forces me to re-state my argument slightly. I personally find it kind of funny how you don't agree with their argument, but manage to do more to defend it then they do. :P
For that matter, CON bonus is not random either, but that's actually irrelvent for whether or not hit points are random in 1ed, 2ed, and 3ed, because ANY random element makes the entire thing random, it's just random within a narrower range.
If we are only accepting the inclusion of the core three books, I would like to posit yet one more MASSIVE change that 2e made from 3e. The skills mechanic. Unless you include skills and powers, 3e skill points was a HUGE change from 2e non weapon proficiency skill mechanics. HUGE.
Not really. non-weapon proficiencies WERE skills(and feats). All 3ed did was add more of them, split some into feats, and make it so that you got better at them, rather than having a static number that never changed. This is just as drastic a change as 4ed combing skills into groups, adding half your level to the rolls, and making skill training = a static +5.
1ed: Hit points = random. 2ed: Hit points = random. 3ed: Hit points = random. 4ed: Hit points = non-random.
Those are the straight up facts. Your spin cannot change them.
But, I never claimed that was not true. What I claimed was:
1ed: two periods of hit point generation, random and non random. 2e: two periods of hit point generation, random and non random. 3e: one period of hit point generation, random. 4e: one period of hit point generation, non random.
As crazy pointed out, there is one extra mechanic I did not account for... max hit points at 1st level in 3e. But, this mechanic bears direct relation to the higher sum of hit points granted at first level in 4e. When you count these two equivalent changes as canceling each other out, what you are left with is the above table once again. Or, in other words:
4e removes all non random hit point generation, and replaces 3e max hit points at level one with a larger sum of hit points gained at level one. 3e removes the largest period of random hit point generation, and replaces it with max hit points at level one. 1-2e include two periods of hit point generation, a random period, and a non random period.
The changes from 1-2e and 3e and 1-2e and 4e are about equivalent. Its not spin, its perspective. I don't consider the fact that 4e is the only edition to not include some random hit point generation to be a fundamental change when one keeps in mind the total number of changes made to how one generates hit points from edition to edition. I believe that ignoring the total number of changes made in relation to hit point generation is a double standard. Especially when you keep in mind that by calling the changes in skills from 2e to 3e is equivalent to the changes from 3e to 4e (again, in the area of skills) is true only when you factor in Skills and Powers supplement books. And, if you factor in supplement books, then Living GreyHawk included rules for static hit point generation.
Are you seriously trying to tell me that 3ed changing a sytem where there was SMALL portion of non-random hit points to a system where ALL hit points are random, is as large a change as 4ed turning a system where ALL hit points are random into one where ALL hit points are non-random is equal? I certainly hope not.
I was actually saying that 3e and 4e deviate equally from 2e, in relation to hit point generation. And, when one factors in supplemental rules, 4e deviates from 3e either equally, or less, then 3e did from 2e (depending on how you quantify the importance of what changes in the area of hit point generation).
Very, very, very, very non-equal ones, sure. The 4ed changes are FAR greater, and your attempts to deceptively spin this are not working.
Your attempts to spin the statement that the changes in 4e are greater are not working. Many posters on this thread continue to disagree with you.
