|
5 months ago ::
Dec 19, 2012 - 1:40PM
#1
|
Date Joined:
Apr 15, 2001
|
A response to the other thread claiming 3.75. My guess is it may be a popular opinion from the 4th ed crowd. D&DN has more 4th ed in it than 3.5 and even 4th ed had elements of 3.5 in it such as feats, d20 mechanics, an evolved skill system etc. Elements of 4th ed were also introduced in 3.5 with the Book of Nine Swords being the famous one. I do not see anyone complaining about 3.5 elements in 4th ed. Some things also only share the same title as well just like various things in 4th ed usually paragon paths that were 3.5 prestige classes.
Anyway there is very little in the current playtest that can actually be pinned on 3.5 that was not also recycled in 4th ed and that is mostly d20- feats and skills for example. Skills in D&DN right now resemble a 3.0/3.5 skill list but their resolution is more simialr to 4th ed and the skill dice is new AFAIK.
I will have a quick look through the packets roughly in the same order as every players handbook ever printed.
Races.
No racial penalties check. 4th ed influence. No raical powers, not a 4th ed influence, no +2 except for humans either so that indicates a pre 3rd ed presence. Humans in 3.0-4th ed and PF were very similar as well, bonus feat and skil etc. Right now the races are more pre 3rd ed with 4th ed influence.
Classes.
Vancian is back OH NOES they are reprinting 3rd ed. 4th ed was the only edition to not have vancian casting in its 38 year history so 4th ed is actually the odd one out here. Thats not a 3.5 influence it is a pre 4th ed influence. Of the individual classes.
Cleric. Probably the stongest 3.5 class influence in the game via level 8/9 spells (pre 3rd ed priests /clercs only had lvl 7 max) and they also have a domain that while different does evoke 3.5 here IMHO.
Fighter.
Not even close to the 3.5 fighter although some of the manuveurs to evoke the naes of 3.5 feats mechanicially they duplicate 4th ed status effects (push, knockdown etc). I honestly see more 4th ed in the current fighter than 3.5. Maybe 4th ed essentials. This is not a bad thing and I like the current fighter although it is boring after level 10. It also doesn't resemble the pre 3rd ed fighter much.
Monk
Uses some 3rd ed terminology that was probably borrowed from pre 3rd ed. Resembles the 4th ed monk more than the others due to the primary fact the D&DN Monk doesn't actually suck like it did in 3rd ed and maybe 1st. 2nd ed monk was a priest varient with spells. Also hits hard so it is kind of a striker in 4th ed terms. Doesn't really resemble any editions monk that much but 4th ed probably has the most influence but its marginal. Once again thats a good thing IMHO. Monk still sucks in Pathfinder. No alignment restrictions is a definate 4th ed influence.
Rogue
More or less a new class. If one looks hard enough you can see 3.5, 4th and Star Wars Saga influences in it. Whatever it is it barely resembles the 3.5 Rogue and its 4th ed influence is not a strong one excet that it hits hard which is a bit like a striker I suppose. Very little 3.5 influence either way.
Wizard
AH the sky is falling its a 3.5 wizard. Well for starters it is actually more or less a 2nd ed wizard with 4th ed at wills strapped on. The at wills resemble 4th ed ones more than 3.5 reserve feats anyway. The wizard lacks the power of the 3.5 one, and it has no 3.5 class features. The only class features it really has is spells and what it gets at level 1.
Skills. Maybe a 3rd ed influence but its really d20. 4th ed had 3rd ed influence in regards to its skills.
Spells. More or less 2nd ed here in terms of power level and iconic spells like fireball do not scale similar to 4th ed powers. Since 1st ed -3rd ed all used a similar magic mechanic this is more of a pre 4th ed influence than directly 3.5. The pre 4th ed influence is stronger IMHO than the modest 4th ed influences here (at wills, capped spells)
Monsters.
The recharge mechanic has been used for Dragons since at least second ed but D&DN uses the 4th ed recharge format. The layout of the monsters also resemble 4th ed stat blocks and some of the have abilites simialr to 4th ed ones. The monsters are probaby 4th eds strongest influence on D&DN. They are not 3.5 monsters by any means although they may have a simplicity to them that 3.5 lcked. 3.5 was actually the odd man out here in terms of simple monsters as BECM,1st,2nd, and 4th were all reasonably basic and simple.
Overall the 3 main things that stand out for me in 3.5 era D&D would be the power level of the spellcasters, complexity and options both in bloat and the way one could multiclass. D&DN spellcasters are nerfed in that context and are similar to second ed ones. D&DN isn't that complex when compared to 3.5 era either and we do not know how multiclassing will work yet. Prestige classes are also going to be coming apparently but we do not know if they wil be like 3.5 ones or resemble a 2nd ed kit or 4th ed paragon path. See previous point about terminology that even 4th ed used form 3.5. Only 1 class out of 5 even resembles a 3.5 class with the wizard while being vancian resembles the pre 3rd ed wizard with at wills strapped on.
Very little distinct 3.5 is actually present in D&DN, alot of pre 4th ed ideas are there but not many of them date from the 3.5 era. The 4th ed influences in the game are mostly positive ones as well although I personally like things such as racial stat penalties and alignment restrictions (more or less due to tradition).
Reducing a character to a list of dice rolls and modifiers is not role playing*
*pg 30, AD&D 2nd Ed DMG, 1989.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 19, 2012 - 1:45PM
#2
|
|
|
I don't think reason really matters to the people who want edition X. They will complain no matter what is released. I just find it funny that the strongest fans of 4E seem to be the people that hated D&D prior to 4E.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 19, 2012 - 1:49PM
#3
|
|
|
+10 Zard, + freaking 10.
Very good post.
My two copper.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 19, 2012 - 1:53PM
#4
|
Date Joined:
Jun 21, 2012
|
A really interesting analysis, and very true. The core issue with this process is that 4e is the odd one out. It's the most different from everything else, which means that the departure from 4e is going to be far and away the most visible.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 19, 2012 - 1:53PM
#5
|
Date Joined:
Oct 17, 2007
|
I find it amazing how 5E manages to pick sparse, seemingly random elements of 4E while accurately missing all of the features which were key to that system.
Savage Worlds is closer to 4E than this playtest is.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 19, 2012 - 1:56PM
#6
|
|
|
Let's PLEASE not turn this into another "It's not 4e enough" thread. There are plenty of them already.
My two copper.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 19, 2012 - 1:57PM
#7
|
Date Joined:
Jun 13, 2010
|
I find it amazing how 5E manages to pick sparse, seemingly random elements of 4E while accurately missing all of the features which were key to that system.
Savage Worlds is closer to 4E than this playtest is.
Yes, I agree with that. 
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 19, 2012 - 2:01PM
#8
|
Date Joined:
Jun 21, 2012
|
haha yeah I think the point of the post is that it's neither 3e nor 4e. It's actually a lot closer to AD&D with some new stuff and some 3&4e stuff.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 19, 2012 - 2:01PM
#9
|
Date Joined:
Jun 13, 2010
|
I don't think reason really matters to the people who want edition X. They will complain no matter what is released. I just find it funny that the strongest fans of 4E seem to be the people that hated D&D prior to 4E.
I loved D&D from basic till AD&D 2E, and I am a strong 4E fan today, think it´s a very well build system. Lots of 4E fans played and loved old editions back in the day.
Moderated by
Orc_Barrons
on Dec 19, 2012 - 02:15PM
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 19, 2012 - 2:09PM
#10
|
|
|
I don't think reason really matters to the people who want edition X. They will complain no matter what is released. I just find it funny that the strongest fans of 4E seem to be the people that hated D&D prior to 4E.
That's not generally true. Most of us actually loved D&D before 4E. That's why we were playing it. Loving something doesn't keep you from recognizing that it's not perfect in every facet, though, and when 4e addressed a lot of the issues 3.5 had and introduced some cool new ideas, I happily embraced 4e.
As somebody who has extensive experience with both 3.5 and 4E, I find the notion that Next has more 4E in it than 3.5 patently absurd to the extent of being essentially indefensible. I wouldn't call it 3.75; it's definitely made too many lateral moves for that to be at al apropos, but it's clearly a 3.5ish system. Things like "the monk essentially has all of the form of the 3.5 monk and none of the form of the 4E monk, but I'm putting it in the 4E column because the monk doesn't suck, which makes it more like the 4E monk than the sucky 3.5 monk" are borderline gibberish. "The monk will be a mechanically impotant" wasn't a 3.5 design decision. It's just something that happened because they didn't bother to care.
And guess what? I'm actually okay with Next resembling 3.5 more than other editions. It may be just impossible for someone who sees Next's development as some kind of validation or repudiation of their playstyle to even comprehend the idea that someone would be okay with the edition strongly resembling an edition they don't think is quite as good, but I genuinely feel that it's okay if Next looks more like 3.5. I really, really liked 3.5.
What is the sort of thing that I do care about is a failure to seriously evaluate what does and doesn't work in favor of a sort of cargo cult posturing. And yes, it's painful to read design notes columns that are all just "So D&D 3.5 sort of had these problems. We know people have some issues with them. What a puzzler! But we think we have a solution in the form of X", where X is sort of a half-baked version of an idea that 4e executed perfectly well and which worked fine.
The idea that Next needs to maintain some kind of careful balance between different editions to make everyone happy is nonsense. Next needs to be a good game. I don't care if Next is 0% 4E as long as it's a good game. I would humbly suggest, however, that Next is much more likely to be a good game if that's not the case. I don't want Next to just be more 4E; I want Next to be more good, and there's a large supply of good that they're randomly ignoring in 4E. I actively dislike many of their attempts to allegedly incorporate more 4E because they reveal fundemental misunderstandings about what 4E players actually care about.
Dwarves invented beer so they could toast to their axes. Dwarves invented axes to kill people and take their beer.
"Feel free to claim I said anything you like. How's someone going to call you out on it? Are they going to be all like, 'I know all of the things that Gary said, and that's not one of them?'"
- Gary Gygax
|
|
|
