In 3e stats were basically limitless, allthough they "only" went up every 4th level statbonus items with bonuses up to +8 or thereabouts were very common and starting out with an 18 was pretty common too. So a High level wizard say could have an Int of say 30+.

Of course compared to the coolness of 2e 19+ stats, 3e stats were mundane things, just giving a bonus, but still extremely important. An Int 30 Wizard's spells would be pretty damn hard to resist. For an actually way weaker example, a Str 30 Fighter would have a stat to-hit bonus of +10 and if wielding say a greatsword (anything else = BADWRONG) have a base dmg bonus of +15 (without further bonii from Magic and specialization...).

4e fans say it's 1e/2e/3e
3e fans say it's 1e/2e/4e
AD&D fans say it's 4e/3e

That should tell you right there that it's its own game, with things pulled from every other edition, and doesn't emulate one edition more than another.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;7747604e fans say it's 1e/2e/3e
3e fans say it's 1e/2e/4e
AD&D fans say it's 4e/3e

That should tell you right there that it's its own game, with things pulled from every other edition, and doesn't emulate one edition more than another.

Well put!

I view each edition as its own 'space,' liable to please a set of people, be ok for a larger set of people, and be utterly meh for a lot of other people.

The beauty is there've been a slew of editions, so people can find their own thing (and then tweak further).

The other day I was gushing about how simple and streamlined 5e was, like skills are just proficient/not proficient.

And someone said 'eww.' They preferred having various point values for different skills. Felt it made a more convincing/interesting character.


Different strokes.

Quote from: The Ent;774761Well put!

Here is my observation.  Die hard fans of a particular edition have looked at 5e and saw a few elements that seem to be inspired by an edition they hate.  So they overlook or ignore the elements from the editions they like, and say things like, "5e is just a rehashed version of X edition."

Seems to be pretty standard human behavior for us to do things like that.

For example, some 4e fans will say it's just a rehash of 2e/3e because there's nothing of 4e in the game so they feel spurned or something.  Well, we all know there are elements of 4e in the game, just not to the level they want.  And the AD&D fan saying it's just a mashup of 3e/4e while ignoring the fact that 5e doesn't need minis, a grid, use of feats, and has an alignment system like AD&D does.

As my mom used to say, "tough titties said the kitty when the milk ran dry."  Just because you're (general you) favorite mechanic wasn't copied over exactly as you want doesn't mean that 5e didn't pull any inspiration from your edition.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;7747604e fans say it's 1e/2e/3e
3e fans say it's 1e/2e/4e
AD&D fans say it's 4e/3e

That should tell you right there that it's its own game, with things pulled from every other edition, and doesn't emulate one edition more than another.

  I generally agree, but a couple of caveats:

  1. I think the flavor and style are very strongly AD&D/3E influenced. ("It's not D&D without the Great Wheel", for example.) Elements of 4E appear to have shown up, but leading to point 2 ...

   2. I think Basic fans do have grounds to feel they've been left out in the cold, as that strain of the game hardly got mentioned at all during the 2-year buildup. Even 4E got more respect. Now, the counterargument is that most of Basic overlaps with AD&D, and there's merit to that, but it is a weak point in your argument.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;774766I generally agree, but a couple of caveats:

  1. I think the flavor and style are very strongly AD&D/3E influenced. ("It's not D&D without the Great Wheel", for example.) Elements of 4E appear to have shown up, but leading to point 2 ...

   2. I think Basic fans do have grounds to feel they've been left out in the cold, as that strain of the game hardly got mentioned at all during the 2-year buildup. Even 4E got more respect. Now, the counterargument is that most of Basic overlaps with AD&D, and there's merit to that, but it is a weak point in your argument.

I wouldn't say it's a weak point in my argument when you just proved it

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;774766I think Basic fans do have grounds to feel they've been left out in the cold, as that strain of the game hardly got mentioned at all during the 2-year buildup. Even 4E got more respect.

Here's something I wish someone would explain to me.

What's with this whole "respect" thing? Pardon my language, but I could not personally give a flying fuck whether the designers of 5e properly "credited" some element of the game to any particular previous edition.

If I was being paid royalties, I'd care. And maybe I'd care if I was a game writer who wanted to bolster my resume. But I'm not, and so far as I know, neither is anyone else who's been complaining about these perceived slights in failing to make proper attributions to previous versions.

So far as I can tell, none of this has any real world consequence beyond preliminary marketing strategy, and the vast majority of potential customers are going to judge the game on what it does rather than on its fucking biological heritage.

If they are sane, anyway.

I believe folks have pointed out a few things in 5e that are done poorly that were done better in 4e, which is annoying.

Although right now I don't remember exactly what they were. Maybe it's the gloves of ogre power (which I'm SO not using in my campaigns)

I don't buy into the jaded view that 5E is a mirror in which people see their most hated previous edition. My 'desert island' game (1 game/edition over all others) is 1E AD&D, and I see major influences from all editions but 2E in 5E.

Basic structure of the game and most classes: OD&D

Most of the real content we should expect (spells, monsters, etc.), and the balance and speed of play: 1E

Notions of customizable characters, with choices of skills/abilities/feats/powers, various new sub classes and races: 3E

Healing surges, powers that 'reset' frequently: 4E

Oh, I'd say there's some 2e in it too - the backgrounds, in particular, and the subclasses.
(Besides, what you mentioned as 1e things are also 2e things.)

Quote from: The Ent;774780Oh, I'd say there's some 2e in it too - the backgrounds, in particular, and the subclasses.
(Besides, what you mentioned as 1e things are also 2e things.)

This and I think moving forward 2e's influence will be shown in the publishing model (settings and fewer player only facing books).

Quote from: Marleycat;774784This and I think moving forward 2e's influence will be shown in the publishing model (settings and fewer player only facing books).

That'd be great.

Quote from: The Ent;774786That'd be great.

From what I'm getting the rpg isn't even the focus anymore Hasbro/WoTC are going for the movies, toys, games, apps, multiple digital platform tools which are huge money makers. The rpg can then put out 6 products a year 4-5 being DM focused another 6 peripheral things  and let a vetted list of 3pp's published stuff and allow the community to share stuff for private use while both watching what is popular so they can use it and integrate it in 5e in a rare global update. Now you have 5e being an evergreen edition and profit for everybody.

Yeah, Mearls was saying somewhere that they want each new book to be an event, so i'd guess we won't see many books a year.