souran wrote:tussock wrote:What do you think a new edition is? I admit 4e D&D muddies the water somewhat, because it was a whole new game using the old IP, but every other edition of D&D (including Pathfinder) is just some incremental adjustments to things that annoyed the players plus a coat of paint, where fireball is a 3rd level spell and does 1d6/level damage, but not 3d6, because D&D.
Tussock, do you just like being wrong?
I'm not afraid of it.
There were signifigant system changes between original D&D and Advanced D&D in major rules areas of combat and exploration, much of this had to be re-written or developed because OD&D assumed you owned a number of 3rd party wargames and board games and could steal parts from those or even just fucking play those games at certain points.
AD&D == OD&D with the alt (Gary's) combat engine + Greyhawk + EW + Gary's modules + bits from The Dragon + tournament stuff - Dave's stuff. Almost none of it was new. There's certainly stuff missing from OD&D, because it was Dave's, like the ship combat and castle encounters and siege rules and the notion of the hostile underworld and so on.
AD&D combat still hides a bunch of rules in the game masters book and uses lots of tables that are basically pulled from gygax's asshole. 2E restructred these so that THACO was formula based but saves were still just a table of whatever felt right.
THAC0 is in the 1st edition DMG, and is formulaic just like the saves. There's even fortitude, reflex, and will power modifiers to your saves.
3E is a bigger change from 2E than 4E is from 3E because 4E is still fundamentally a d20 game which 2E is NOT.
:ROFL:
You need to seriously check the spell lists in the three editions some time, not to mention what counts as "a d20 game" includes shit like d20 Modern and Star-Wars Saga and a bunch of other stuff that also isn't D&D.
Almost all the 3e rules can be found in AD&D, 2nd ed, Mentzer Basic, and scattered through various ancient Dragon articles and expansion books. Plenty of people already used upward-AC because it had been in Dragon mag, the skill system is very similar to the one from Player's Option: Skills & Powers, those are the only things that make it "d20" at all. Obviously Got much better in 3e, but they do all the same stuff as AD&D.
Regardless, Paizo doesn't appear to have anybody working on "fixing" any known broken rules issue anywhere in the game and Unchained and Ultimate Intrigue are the basic proof of that.
Whut? Unchained is...
1: multiple replacements for core classes.
2: multiple replacements for the core skill system.
3: fiddling with core alignment, action economy, hit point system, and their disease rules.
4: new ways to use core spells and magic items.
5: new monster generation methodology (really, what else is that but a preview?).
What the fuck
does it look like to you when someone is working on fixing core elements of the game? Because if that isn't it, I'm really confused somewhere.
CapnTThePriateG wrote:As these people tend to be pretty vocal in the fanbase, is it any wonder that Mike Mearls' main innovations of "making the numbers smaller to avoid math" and "not writing rules" has been embraced wholeheartedly by the people who despise "munchkins"?
I think the reason no one barks on about the math not working is someone showed the math didn't work in 4e about three days after release, with big tables and shit, and you can't actually argue about that. The actual arguments about 5th edition are terrible, and the very small numbers of people embracing it make Paizo look like giants.
The Paizo fanbase, notably, does not like munchkins. Not on their forums at least. Mathhammering shit to show which classes even work is essentially banned.
PC, SJW, anti-fascist, not being a dick, or working on it, he/him.