And it is your contention that the changes referenced above between 2e and 3e were just as great as the changes referenced above between 3e and 4e?
Hahahahahahahahahaha
Seriously?
I can do this too, right? List a minor change from 3e to 4e and then a ton of changes from 2e to 3e and pretend that somehow it's a fair comparison?
That's allowed now?
So in 2e to 3e, we had changes to every non-combat maneuver, changes in experience, how monsters are presented and created, how magic items are crafted, how initiative works, the removal of weapon speeds, the addition of feats and the codification of (and changes to) skills, and the streamlining of class progression and multiclassing.
In 3e to 4e, they changed alignment a little.
It is your contention that the changes referenced above between 2e and 3e were no greater than the changes referenced above between 3e and 4e?
I just want to make sure I'm understanding what you're saying.
|
Definitely a popcorn night."Would you like some popcorn then?" Points to the fire pit
" I also have some Caribbean jerked kender on the fire, if you would like some. Its good for the Soul"
PALADIN AM ONLY HAVE SMITE EVIL FOR PAYMENT. BANK OF ASMODEUS TURN DOWN CREDIT CARD APPLICATION, SAY CREDIT REPORT AM TOO GOOD.
Expressing a change I identified as a 'concern' is mischaracterizing what I'm saying. I'm not concerned about anything in 4e. It demands about as much of my stress as the price of eggs in China.
Mmmm, nope.
I think you have concerns with 4e, and it's those concerns which have led to your negative opinion of it (and its changes). The alternative is that you have no concerns with 4e's rules, and thus have a negative opinion of it for absolutely no reason whatsoever, which would make your opinion fairly worthless.
I think I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on this one. So you were saying?
Don't mention the ability to add wisdom to AC. Those monks are munchkins.Monks have always added wis to AC. A class' ability to add an attribute mod to AC is not the same as giving a class the option to change which attribute's mod is added.
It's pretty close. Of course, like I pointed out, I'm sure you have some reason for it not counting.
So much misdirected anger Scott, you die at encounters tonight or just need a hug ?
Really?
Are you sure that's how you want to respond to that? With a personal attack that doesn't even address the post?
Up to you, I guess.
A class' ability to add an attribute mod to AC is not the same as giving a class the option to change which attribute's mod is added.What, like Dex to attack?
I love this thread.
I'm sure you'd like to think that my comments have been driven by emotional hysteria rather than objective analysis, but that's you trying to make an ad hominem.
Er.
No.
Read my post. I actually believe that you probably do have reasons for your opinion, which is why I said I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, despite your claim that your opinion of 4e had nothing to do with you having any concerns about the game itself. That does, of course, require that you have - as I pointed out - concerns with 4e. I was hoping you would explain where those concerns were coming from, but it's proving sort of frustrating to get to that point.
While I did, at one time, have such an emotional reaction to 4e, Pathfinder has made that reaction unnecessary and I've moved on.
Yeah...
PALADIN AM ONLY HAVE SMITE EVIL FOR PAYMENT. BANK OF ASMODEUS TURN DOWN CREDIT CARD APPLICATION, SAY CREDIT REPORT AM TOO GOOD.Definitely a popcorn night."Would you like some popcorn then?" Points to the fire pit
" I also have some Caribbean jerked kender on the fire, if you would like some. Its good for the Soul"
"Well I have been told, Its just hear say now. That if ya are a bit more Friendly with the manager you have a lot easier time with that kind of thing"
It is impossible to explain how disrupting an action works in 4e without referencing a ton of other changes that were also made between 3e and 4e.
Actually, I'm pretty sure discussing the power structure had basically nothing whatsoever to do with how you disrupt an action. The frequency-of-use of a power has no bearing on your ability to disrupt it.
But sure, you have to explain some stuff.
But when explaining how disrupting works in 3e, it is possible to do it without referencing a ton of other changes that were also done between 2e and 3e.
Sure. I mean, no need to explain attacks of opportunity. Or how readied actions work. Or how the new initiative structure that supports those readied actions works. Or how counterspelling works. Or what the changes to schools of magic work (for Improved Counterspelling, don't you know). Oh, and if we're discussing Improved Counterspelling, we'll probably need to explain feats. Oh, and let's not forget Dispel Magic. Oh, and those require caster level checks!
Your logic is fun!
Okay, when you said "initiative ticks" I thought you meant "rounds". not "segments".
It had been a while since I played 2e, so I couldn't think of the proper term off the top of my head.
And it is your contention that the changes referenced above between 2e and 3e were just as great as the changes referenced above between 3e and 4e?
You made your example overly complicated. In 4E they pretty much eliminated interrupting actions. That's a design choice I'm mostly ok with. Because in my experience, rarely does a wizard fail to cast a spell in 3E. So you could just let them cast without hindrance and eliminate a fairly fiddly bit in 3E. Which, when looked at as a trend started in the move from 2E to 3E, is really progress in the same direction.
My point was never that the 2E to 3E change were "as big or bigger" than the 4E changes. I was refuting the claim upthread that 2E to 3E had no major changes.
The change to initiative, weapon speed, and casting times majorly effected the feel of spell casting in 3E. 4E uses the exact same action structure as 3E, except they eliminated the full-round action and renamed the swift action. Of course, it had major changes in other areas.
My point remains that both 3E and 4E were revolutionary systems. Which had "bigger" changes tends to be an opinion based on how much you liked those changes.
I find it interesting (and, yes, frustrating) that everyone taking the opposing position in this discussion seems -incapable- of taking it without making assumptions about me personally. That reveals some interesting tacit social dynamics between the core and the periphery.
I don't need to make assumptions. Per your own post:
The fact that I didn't like the changes from 3e to 4e has nothing to do with the size of the changes between the various versions.
You've straight up told us you didn't like the changes.
We're responding by telling you that your distaste for 4e has very little to do with the size of the changes between 3e and 4e and everything to do with the fact that you just didn't like them.
We're also telling you that the perception that the changes from 2e to 3e are smaller than the changes from 3e to 4e is somewhere between illusionary and inscrutable, and that said perception is largely a function of your distaste for the changes magnifying their significance in your mind.
Is that clear?
PALADIN AM ALWAYS FRIENDLY. SMITE EVIL AM GIFT WHAT KEEP ON GIVING.
"I think you have been smiting with the..eh incorrect weapon"
Since the Ranger's ability to disrupt is an encounter power, it is necessary to explain what an encounter power is.
The Ranger has no encounter-based ability to disrupt spells in any way that is equivalent to how spells can be disrupted in 3e.
So, no.
2e had readied actions and counterspelling.
And I'm sure they were both exactly the same in 2e as in 3e, and that someone coming from one game to the other would require no explanation as to how they work!
I find it interesting (and, yes, frustrating) that everyone taking the opposing position in this discussion seems -incapable- of taking it without making assumptions about me personally. That reveals some interesting tacit social dynamics between the core and the periphery.
I don't think I've made many assumptions about you personally. I may have let a little snark show through, and if that bothered you I apologize.
If you look at my subscriber tag, you can see I am a big Pathfinder fan. I just also see the merit in exploring other systems. 4E had some revolutionary ideas. Depending on what you want out of your game, they may be really good, or just meh. I feel the need to defend it on these boards because it has a lot more merit than a lot of posters give it credit for. I'd also defend Warhammer, Earthdawn, Talislanta, or Rolemaster if the need arose. But for some reason, Pathfinder vs Talislanta fights don't seem to break out very often.
PS: The best changes in D&D 3E were stolen from Talislanta 3rd Edition. Published in 1993 by Wizards of the Coast. Revised by Jonathan Tweet. ;)
I don't think I ever said that the change from 2e to 3e had no major changes. What I asserted was that the changes weren't as great as the changes between 3e and 4e.
My point was never that the 2E to 3E change were "as big or bigger" than the 4E changes. I was refuting the claim upthread that 2E to 3E had no major changes.
And how "great" those changes are is very subjective. Have you played 2E recently? I did last year. To me it felt as different as playing 4E. We could go all night making bullet point lists of changes, but its pointless. The changes from 2E to 3E to 4E are major enough that you have to relearn a lot about the game. To me, that seems like each edition was radically different.
As to people making personal assumptions, I realized it was you who upthread declared that I drink paint thinner.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What's the point of your argument, DW?
I played both PF and 4e when they came out. I liked PF a lot more, so I stuck with that one. The one thing that drove me nuts though was the rabid hatred of 4e by my fellow players, and their statements about "the true way DnD works" when they were kids who only knew 3e, ever. Some of them only knew 3.5, not even 3.0.
So because I've had these same arguments and heard these same points before, I'm going to bet Scott wins here. 4e has a lot in common with 3e. It has a lot in common with older editions. In some ways, a lot more in common with older editions than 3e did.
I liked where 3e took the game. I didn't like where 4e took it, and loved where PF went with it. Also, Paizo gives the impression of a company more in touch with its customers (like me) than WotC does. That doesn't objectively ruin 4e, or divorce it from the evolution of gaming from which it sprang.
I hope 5e is great. I hope it provides more fun for more gamers, and allows WotC to rethink some of their business decisions like no pdfs, no free art galleries and monthly subscriptions only to online magazines. I hope they make a Magic: The Gathering setting for DnD. I really hope it does a great job.
I'll be playing PF, but I like to read and look at other games. Shadowrun, WoD, AD&D....4e wasn't much fun for me to read, and I hope 5e changes.
At this point I would like to ask everyone to step back from their computers for a moment to take a breather.
Yes, I know you are. And that's an ad hominem. An ad hominem is a logical error.
Haha, yes, it is an ad hominem. Specifically, circumstantial. But it's not a fallacy here. :)
That's okay, though. I'd rather we not pretend at rules of logic.
I, also, will point out that I've been upfront about the fact that I didn't like the changes made from 3e to 4e.
That's what I said. You made it perfectly clear you don't like those changes. Then you turned around and were all, "Why is everyone assuming I don't like those changes?! Ad hominem!" and we were all sort of confused.
I've also said that I've moved on and don't care about what's going on with 4e.
But at one point you did, because you formed opinions on its rules changes. And those opinions are, accordingly, informing your argument now. So, again, it would be cool to learn where those concerns came from because that would make them a lot easier to address (or ignore, depending).
(Did you see that change between "didn't like" and "don't care"? That's called "verb tense". In the English language it represents a change in the time at which the action or state of being was/is occuring. I know the English language can be hard to learn. I assumed you were a native speaker.)
Oh, no, sorry. I'm actually from the moon. You have no idea how difficult it is, trying to conjugate verbs while breathing in an unfamiliar nitrogen-rich atmosphere using lungs that, by all accounts, I have no reason to have evolved in the first place.
None of this has anything to do with what I'm attempting to do here - have an objective discussion about the size of the changes between 3e and 4e.
I'm not certain what the point of that is. Who cares what the size of changes are? And, as I've been trying to say, size of changes is really a subjective value judgement. I could take the text of all three players guides and run a word difference checker on it, but the numbers it gives would be meaningless.
If you want to talk about specific changes and why you think they are good or bad, I'm all for it.
What's the point of your argument, DW?
Its an analysis, not an argument.
But, at this point, its a lost cause. You all simply aren't interested in having such an analysis and I regret that I attempted it.
We're not interested in having you give us an utterly subjective run down of exactly how massive the changes from 3e to 4e are, because frankly that means nothing to us. And when we've responded reasonably and with counter-examples that challenge (and I say that charitably) your thesis, we get... accused of logical fallacies on the internet?
But sure, we're a lost cause, us Paizo fans. @_@
What's the point of your argument, DW?
Its an analysis, not an argument.
But, at this point, its a lost cause. You all simply aren't interested in having such an analysis and I regret that I attempted it.
We're not interested in having you give us an utterly subjective run down of exactly how massive the changes from 3e to 4e are, because frankly that means nothing to us. And when we've responded reasonably and with counter-examples that challenge (and I say that charitably) your thesis, we get... accused of logical fallacies on the internet?
But sure, we're a lost cause, us Paizo fans. @_@
I could be wrong, but I think he meant that the discussion was a lost cause, not the paizo fan base.
None of this has anything to do with what I'm attempting to do here - have an objective discussion about the size of the changes between 3e and 4e.
It boils down to this: you cannot have an objective discussion about the size of the changes between 3e and 4e, especially as the sizes of those changes relate to the changes between other editions.
Objective discussions require a shared metric, and there is no shared metric here for the discussion of the size of changes in rules systems.
So you can't have an objective discussion.
You can have a subjective discussion, but it's going to be you talking and the rest of us disagreeing with you. And lo and behold, that's what you got.
I'm puzzled as to why you're surprised by this.
I could be wrong, but I think he meant that the discussion was a lost cause, not the paizo fan base.What's the point of your argument, DW?
Its an analysis, not an argument.
But, at this point, its a lost cause. You all simply aren't interested in having such an analysis and I regret that I attempted it.
We're not interested in having you give us an utterly subjective run down of exactly how massive the changes from 3e to 4e are, because frankly that means nothing to us. And when we've responded reasonably and with counter-examples that challenge (and I say that charitably) your thesis, we get... accused of logical fallacies on the internet?
But sure, we're a lost cause, us Paizo fans. @_@
Yes, my reply was snark - I'm sure that he, to some degree, imagines us to be on some other "side" of an edition-based conflict, and that his "lost cause" jab came in part from that perception. I was simply trying to illustrate how silly that is, by pointing out that the people arguing against him enjoy the same game he does.
What's the point of your argument, DW?
Its an analysis, not an argument.
But, at this point, its a lost cause. You all simply aren't interested in having such an analysis and I regret that I attempted it.
However I didn't ever see you present your analysis. Most of what I saw from you was the conclusion that you drew based upon your analysis. The bits that I saw, like mentioning disrupting ranger encounter powers, don't make much sense to me. I feel completely comfortable in saying that I could describe those mechanics in 3.5 and possibly find examples of how they did that exact thing within the core rulebooks and nothing you presented makes me think that it is a vast change without actually comparing it to the actual way it changed between 2e and 3e as well.
Actually, all this talk of comparing changes across editions could be useful if we removed it from the edition warring context.
What if we took a variety of tasks at varying complexities that the rules can be expected to adjudicate and compare the resolution methods across the various editions? If we could come up with a relatively representative sample of different rules tasks, it might actually provide some insight into the mechanical feel of each edition. If we were really ambitious, we could come up with ever non-corner case rules resolution possible in each edition, then trace back how other editions would handle the same situation.
Which would intrigue me, though I'm not sure where to start. It'd be a good way to trace the emergence of specific rules at the very least and might raise some interesting questions about what each wave of design ideas thought was important.
...On the other hand it sounds like a lot of work for a lot of largely self-evident data, so probably a waste of time.
|
|
The changes to multiclassing, adding skills and feats, radical changes to initiative, the full-round action to make a full attack, altering casting times for spells (to go with the initiative changes), standardizing attribute bonuses, prestige classes, etc. I'm certain there is more that I am forgetting.
Both edition changes made radical changes. Far more radical than 1E -> 2E. The difference really comes down to if you liked the changes or not.
Most of what you listed is either aniche rule (multiclassing) or minor chanes. (Castintime). This isnot subjective, for example, most characters are not multicsse, so multiclassing is a niche rule.
Anyone who thinks the changes to casting time were minor, obviously never played much 1st/2nd Edition.
Instantaneous casting, rather than multi-segment interuptable casting, prevented anyone shooting the caster mid-spell, except via readied actions, and the ability to just 'step' away prevented melee interruptions.
This was a gigantic paradigm shift, that caused immense headaches for our groups at the time, who were used to 'wizard in melee=dead man walking', not seeing them break cover and auto-cast, and was a major contribution to the 3E 'God-Wizard' concept.*
*In addition to all the other benefits they were handed, such as being able to craft from day one, rather than after retirement; automatic spell learning, lifting the Int cap on spells known, allowing more than one chance per lifetime to learn each spell, the choice of opposition school.....truly 3E was The Caster Edition.
Which was what I was attempting and its not worth the effort on these messageboards. You'll end up with people who think its a legitimate reply to paint your comments as "concerns" - emotional reactions - and others who are unable to figure out the difference between "didn't" and "don't".
Bring me a spreadsheet and we'll talk. Until you've done that absurd amount of work, your point is still "I dislike these changes and didn't dislike these changes, so category A changes are 'big' and category B changes are 'small.'"
The first part of the sentence is valid and some exploration of which changes caused the appropriate reactions is probably worthwhile. Arguably it's the entire point of the L&L article line that's floating around right now (or maybe Monte's up to something more persuasive with those incredibly biased polls, but I digress).
It is not self-evident that 2e-3e was a smaller change than 3e-4e. You're either going to have to back that up...which will be exhausting...or go for a less ambitious premise. "2e-3e didn't alienate me and 3e-4e did, here is what think was the cause," is a pretty valid one. Heck, I'll come to your defense when someone attacks one of the reasons you propose as a retrospective empty justification, which always seems to happen, but the first premise isn't a place you can ground an argument on.
...2e had readied actions and counterspelling. I acknowledge that I erred by not mentioning attacks of opportunity, though.
Hunh? I still play 2E. I've never seen anything that references counterspelling or Attacks of Opportunity. Of course, it is quite possible that these were things added in the black covered Player's Options books, the only thing from which we pulled and used are the Weapon Mastery rules.