|
7 months ago ::
Nov 16, 2012 - 1:18PM
#11
|
|
|
I find it amusing that somehow not caring about OD&D and AD&D means you only care about 4e.
I find it amusing that someone could care about 3.5 and not care about OD&D and AD&D, considering that 3.5 is deeply rooted from its past and 4e is not.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 16, 2012 - 1:23PM
#12
|
|
|
I find it amusing that somehow not caring about OD&D and AD&D means you only care about 4e.
I find it amusing that someone could care about 3.5 and not care about OD&D and AD&D, considering that 3.5 is deeply rooted from its past and 4e is not.
We will have to agree to disagree. 3.0e changed D&D just as significantly as 4.0e
Love 4e? Concerned about its future? join the Old Guard of 4th EditionReality Refracted: Social ContractsD & D: A Documentary Kickstarter ( http://kck.st/SyKNzf) 
Dreaming the Impossible Dream
Show
Imagine a world where the first-time D&D player rolls stats, picks a race, picks a class, picks an alignment, and buys gear to create a character. Imagine if an experienced player, maybe the person helping our theoretical player learn the ropes, could also make a character by rolling ability scores and picking a race, class, feat, skills, class features, spells or powers, and so on. Those two players used different paths to build characters, but the system design allows them to play at the same table. -Mearl
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 16, 2012 - 1:24PM
#13
|
|
|
I find it amusing that somehow not caring about OD&D and AD&D means you only care about 4e.
I find it amusing that someone could care about 3.5 and not care about OD&D and AD&D, considering that 3.5 is deeply rooted from its past and 4e is not.
We will have to agree to disagree. 3.0e changed D&D just as significantly as 4.0e
BWAHAHAHA! okay...you're right we will have to agree to disagree.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 16, 2012 - 1:31PM
#14
|
Date Joined:
Dec 31, 2003
|
I don't think he's got the monk history entirely correct. Fighting-Man, Magic-User and Cleric were the first three classes in the original brown book. Thief was introduced as a class in Supplement I: Greyhawk along with the Paladin, while Monk was introduced in Supplement II: Blackmoor as a "sub-class of Clerics which also combines the general attributes of Thief and Fighting Man" while Assassin was a subclass of Thief (Supplement III: Eldritch Wizardry was the one that introduced Druids... and psionics).
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 16, 2012 - 1:36PM
#15
|
Date Joined:
Dec 31, 2003
|
I find it amusing that somehow not caring about OD&D and AD&D means you only care about 4e.
I find it amusing that someone could care about 3.5 and not care about OD&D and AD&D, considering that 3.5 is deeply rooted from its past and 4e is not.
4e draws on many of the things that were ideas in 3e's time. I'm not really sure how you can consider 3.5e to be firmly rooted in its past, and 4e's growth as somehow completely different.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 16, 2012 - 1:46PM
#16
|
|
|
I find it amusing that somehow not caring about OD&D and AD&D means you only care about 4e.
I find it amusing that someone could care about 3.5 and not care about OD&D and AD&D, considering that 3.5 is deeply rooted from its past and 4e is not.
4e draws on many of the things that were ideas in 3e's time. I'm not really sure how you can consider 3.5e to be firmly rooted in its past, and 4e's growth as somehow completely different.
Many of 3.0 and to a smaller extent 3.5 has many mechanics and ideas that were seen in earlier editions from before. Many of the campaigns (albiet from third party) even made it back into the game. The skills from 3.0 are enhanced versions of the proficiency sets that 2nd attempted to improve on over 11 years in its run. Most importantly is that 3.0 and 3.5 still had some possibility of being played without staring at a board and minatures the whole time. 4e that is not the case. So yes the very function of 3.5 is very different than what you have with 4e. 3.5 is related to the earlier editions, while having many things about it that was unique with better implementation. 4e is almost an entirely new game.
So unless you want Next to only be an updated version of 4e, getting input from people whom have played other editions is important as well as 4e.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 16, 2012 - 2:50PM
#17
|
Date Joined:
Dec 31, 2003
|
And 4e's skills system was an evolution of 3e's, designed to eliminate the fact that high level heroes tended to be all-or-nothing when it came to character capabilities. D&D has always been a miniatures game being derived from tactical wargaming, and 3e was no different- 3e was the edition that introduced flanking, full attacks without movement and attacks of opportunity, things that all require you to know exactly where everyone is on the battlefield. 3e really could use a battlemap when you have multiple opponents, same with 4e. I know 4e had a bunch of older modules adapted for it, so it would kind of help if you would be clearer as to what you were looking for.
If 3e is related to earlier editions and 4e is a new game, then what's 5e?
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 16, 2012 - 2:50PM
#18
|
Date Joined:
Jan 17, 2009
|
I'm 31. Most of my playing time spans 2.5 and 3.x. Just because I have played OD&D doesn't mean that I am from that era. I might not have been as clear in my interview  Also, I goofed in my hastily answered question to WotC. The original classes were indeed the fighting-man, cleric, and wizard. Thief and Monk came in the subsequent supplements. I asked for them to help fix my oversight.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 16, 2012 - 4:02PM
#19
|
|
|
If 3e is related to earlier editions and 4e is a new game, then what's 5e?
A combination of multiple editions that are optional so players have the option to play more old school or more new school. Chain Mail was the founding of the minatures game and inspiration for D&D. It became something more than that, but always allowed the use of them in game. Many did. Many found graph paper and pencil to be just as adequate however for more complicated fight scenes. In the latest incarnation that is not really possible at all.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 16, 2012 - 5:13PM
#20
|
|
|
If 3e is related to earlier editions and 4e is a new game, then what's 5e?
A combination of multiple editions that are optional so players have the option to play more old school or more new school. Chain Mail was the founding of the minatures game and inspiration for D&D. It became something more than that, but always allowed the use of them in game. Many did. Many found graph paper and pencil to be just as adequate however for more complicated fight scenes. In the latest incarnation that is not really possible at all.
I haven't had to do much to play 4e with just character sheets and dice. There are aspects that get lost playing that way, but nothing that your going to missing if you choose to play that way in the first place. since squares = 5' I just do the conversion in my head and talk in feet instead of squares. Conversion is the big issue. Its just not possible to easily convert monsters and NPCs you have stated out, but the amount of time it takes to setup 3e made me give up on trying to DM 3e. I just hop in a game or two no and again.
Love 4e? Concerned about its future? join the Old Guard of 4th EditionReality Refracted: Social ContractsD & D: A Documentary Kickstarter ( http://kck.st/SyKNzf)
Dreaming the Impossible Dream
Show
Imagine a world where the first-time D&D player rolls stats, picks a race, picks a class, picks an alignment, and buys gear to create a character. Imagine if an experienced player, maybe the person helping our theoretical player learn the ropes, could also make a character by rolling ability scores and picking a race, class, feat, skills, class features, spells or powers, and so on. Those two players used different paths to build characters, but the system design allows them to play at the same table. -Mearl
|
|
|
