# New edition of D&D coming **URL:** \ **Category:** The Game Room\ **Created:** [January 11, 2012, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-edition-of-d-d-coming/609179 "2012-01-11T17:33:12Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![CandidGamera](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/candidgamera/32/2878_2.png) [@CandidGamera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CandidGamera)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2012, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-edition-of-d-d-coming/609179/61 "2012-01-17T16:18:35Z")
> [@Alessan](#): > > It’s not an infinite loop if the DM says it isn’t. It’s not an infinite loop with a plain reading of the spell text. Therefore, I would correct your statement to : “It’s only an infinite loop if the DM says it is.” Though on second glance, you may not have been responding to me, in which case, my apologies. ---
**Author:** ![Mister\_Rik](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mister_rik/32/491_2.png) [@Mister\_Rik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mister_Rik)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2012, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-edition-of-d-d-coming/609179/62 "2012-01-17T19:58:32Z")
I’ve told the story before, but I’ll say that new editions can definitely cause problems if your DM doesn’t comprehend that the new edition is _actual new rules_ and not just an “update” to the old rules. I started playing D&D when 3.5 was current, but the DM had been DM-ing since 1st Ed. He rendered spellcasters virtually unplayable by trying to enforce 1st- and/or 2nd Ed. rules on them in a 3.5 game. ---
**Author:** ![Mister\_Rik](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mister_rik/32/491_2.png) [@Mister\_Rik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mister_Rik)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2012, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-edition-of-d-d-coming/609179/63 "2012-01-17T20:00:06Z")
Oh yeah, and Penny Arcade’s take on “crowdsourcing”: > **[The Way Forward - Penny Arcade](https://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2012/01/11/the-way-forward)** > > Videogaming-related online strip by Mike Krahulik and Jerry Holkins. Includes news and commentary. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2012, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-edition-of-d-d-coming/609179/64 "2012-01-17T20:27:02Z")
> [@](#): > > I’ve told the story before, but I’ll say that new editions can definitely cause problems if your DM doesn’t comprehend that the new edition is actual new rules and not just an “update” to the old rules. Then again, though, the developers themselves can make that mistake, too. For instance, the 3.x spell Rope Trick contains a warning that it can be dangerous to bring one extradimensional space into another, and the rules spell out consequences for putting a Bag of Holding into a Portable Hole or vice-versa, but they never actually lay out hazards of nested extradimensional spaces in general. Which led many experienced DMs to assume that the old rules were still in force, while their new players had no clue of the risks. ---
**Author:** ![Alessan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alessan/32/465_2.png) [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2012, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-edition-of-d-d-coming/609179/65 "2012-01-17T21:53:30Z")
> [@Mister\_Rik](#): > > I’ve told the story before, but I’ll say that new editions can definitely cause problems if your DM doesn’t comprehend that the new edition is _actual new rules_ and not just an “update” to the old rules. Hey, it’s the publishers’ fault for trying to pass 4E off as D&D. If they wanted to make a completely new game, they shouldn’t have called it Dungeons and Dragons. ---
**Author:** ![Jragon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e19b73/32.png) [@Jragon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jragon)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2012, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-edition-of-d-d-coming/609179/66 "2012-01-17T22:52:05Z")
> [@CandidGamera](#): > > It’s not an infinite loop. Gating in a creature for a non-contractual service has a maximum duration of one round per caster level, so it’s only an infinite loop if your caster level is infinity. Assuming a twentieth level caster, at round 21, your gated demon goes away, and you’ve suddenly lost your chain of command and have 19 demons that don’t answer to you. Here’s [Pun Pun the super kobold](http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19869366/The_most_powerful_character._EVER.), which abuses several infinite loops. I find the new method dodgy since it involves assuming Pazuzu’s decision is already set from the beginning – but the old method (which is now, unfortunately, a wall of text) is pretty solid. Note that no (sane) DM will ever allow Pun-Pun to be played, the point is that the rules abuses exist. Edit: Though I guess it’s not only spellcasters – it’s not an infinite loop, but my friend once showed me a legitimate 10th level or so Dervish spec (may not have been pure Dervish) that got something like 10k attacks per round. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2012, 2:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-edition-of-d-d-coming/609179/67 "2012-01-18T02:15:25Z")
And there’s a build for a Crusader that manages to pull off infinite damage with each attack, using a toothpick (but oddly, it won’t work with anything bigger than a toothpick). ---
**Author:** ![What\_Exit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/what_exit/32/10652_2.png) [@What\_Exit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/What_Exit)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2012, 3:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-edition-of-d-d-coming/609179/68 "2012-01-18T03:08:47Z")
I’m sorry, but isn’t there still a DM or does the computer subscription resolve the roles and arbitrates the game? I mean who cares if there are some holes, a good ref fills in the holes and keeps the game moving. ---
**Author:** ![Crowbar\_of\_Irony\_3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f08c70/32.png) [@Crowbar\_of\_Irony\_3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crowbar_of_Irony_3)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2012, 4:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-edition-of-d-d-coming/609179/69 "2012-01-18T04:23:47Z")
Flame shield on. The issue is that I find many D&D players to adhere strictly to the rules. The first 2 editions have a “wing it if you don’t like it” cause but not for 3 and 3.5. For the latter I notice a tendency to follow the rules at all cost. I think it is because the game is rules heavy so it attracts rules lawyers. Some players may not like what is happening to them in game and will spend a disproportionate amount of time justifying themselves. Then there are rules lawyers who only stick to the official rules and splat books. I still remember in my first game of D&D 3.5 the DM and a player argued for an hour whether he can cast dimensional door to escape a grapple from evard’s black tentacle. Can you cast spell when grappled? Check rules and argue. Check the components for the spell. Check whether the caster can touch others while being grappled to bring them along. Some of these things aren’t in the rules, if I am right and the DM was adamant that the caster cannot escape with dimensional door. Perhaps there is an inherent me vs. the DM mindset at work here or the players are more simulationist (a fancy term among the rpg committee meaning a form of play where the rules are consistent and that consistency is what bring enjoyment). They treat the rules as if it’s a board game and the DM can only create challenges within the framework of the rules and cannonical materials - spells, monsters etc because the designers know best and all those are balanced. In more rules lite system the GM can allow such actions at the cost of some meta game currency, such as Fate or Luck points. The D&D 4 approach is to list down all possible discrete choices. Which IMHO makes the DM redundant during combat. The Neverwinter Nights game on Facebook is my cite. Flame shield off. ---
**Author:** ![Brainiac4](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/brainiac4/32/3534_2.png) [@Brainiac4](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brainiac4)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2012, 4:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-edition-of-d-d-coming/609179/70 "2012-01-18T04:47:33Z")
Speaking as a 4E GM… the fact that the rules offer a fairly complete set of options doesn’t mean that those are the only options you can use. Role-playing games are about imagination. If all you’re doing is using the rules in the books, you’re missing the best part. Back on D&D Next (which is not yet being called 5th Edition by Wizards, and probably won’t be), the intent seems to be to create a meta-version of D&D that allows players and GMs to mix and match rules and options from the many editions to suit their tastes. EN World has a decent set of information: > **[EN World: D&D & Tabletop RPG News & Reviews](https://www.enworld.org/?page=dnd5e)** > > EN World: D&D & Tabletop RPG News & Reviews > [@](#): > > NEW [16 JAN] This Legends & Lore article by Monte Cook says: “…this sounds so crazy that you probably won’t believe it right now—we’re designing the game so that not every player has to choose from the same set of options. Again, imagine a game where one player has a simple character sheet that has just a few things noted on it, and the player next to him has all sorts of skills, feats, and special abilities. And yet they can still play the game together and everything remains relatively balanced. Your 1E-loving friend can play in your 3E-style game and not have to deal with all the options he or she doesn’t want or need. Or vice versa. It’s all up to you to decide.” Wizards is in this for the money, of course, but the designers are in it to try to make a new iteration of the grandfather of RPGs. have no idea if they’ll be able to pull this off, but I’m fascinated by the attempt. ---
**Author:** ![Crowbar\_of\_Irony\_3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f08c70/32.png) [@Crowbar\_of\_Irony\_3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crowbar_of_Irony_3)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2012, 5:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-edition-of-d-d-coming/609179/71 "2012-01-18T05:56:11Z")
> [@Brainiac4](#): > > Speaking as a 4E GM… the fact that the rules offer a fairly complete set of options doesn’t mean that those are the only options you can use. Role-playing games are about imagination. If all you’re doing is using the rules in the books, you’re missing the best part. Of course. Just that the people I know tends to just play to the rules. ---
**Author:** ![Mister\_Rik](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mister_rik/32/491_2.png) [@Mister\_Rik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mister_Rik)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2012, 6:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-edition-of-d-d-coming/609179/72 "2012-01-18T06:22:00Z")
> [@Alessan](#): > > Hey, it’s the publishers’ fault for trying to pass 4E off as D&D. If they wanted to make a completely new game, they shouldn’t have called it Dungeons and Dragons. Granted. I would apply that to 4E, which was indeed a whole new game, mechanics-wise. Not so much 3.x, though, since that was supposed to be “fixing” the problems with previous editions, at least as I understand it. > [@Crowbar\_of\_Irony\_3](#): > > Flame shield on. > > The issue is that I find many D&D players to adhere strictly to the rules. The first 2 editions have a “wing it if you don’t like it” cause but not for 3 and 3.5. For the latter I notice a tendency to follow the rules at all cost. > > I think it is because the game is rules heavy so it attracts rules lawyers. Some players may not like what is happening to them in game and will spend a disproportionate amount of time justifying themselves. Then there are rules lawyers who only stick to the official rules and splat books. I guess it depends on what definition you’re using for “rules lawyer”. I’d agree that the player you described was an ass. Straight up trying to twist the rules as far as they go without breaking them. I’d like to think, naturally, that my own rules-lawyering was more benign. I only argued rules on my own behalf in cases where my DM’s interpretation (or lack thereof) was rendering my character useless and/or unplayable. For example, in one instance my lowbie sorcerer wanted to cast a spell at an enemy who was hiding behind a pillar. In order to get line-of-sight on him, I needed to move 10 feet and then cast the spell, but the DM didn’t want to allow it because, “casting a spell is a Full-round Action”, meaning I couldn’t move and cast the spell in the same round. That was a clear example of how he was stuck in 1E/2E, and didn’t realize that in 3.x, the majority of spells did _not_ require Full-round Actions. The spell I wanted to cast required only a “Standard Action”, and under 3.x rules I was allowed to take both a Move Action and a Standard Action in the same round. In another game he made the same kind of mistake with spellcasters having to make Concentration checks if they took damage while casting a spell. He was again assuming “Full-round Action” for spells, which, by his interpretation, meant that if the spellcaster took damage in the _previous_ round, a Concentration check was necessary before they could cast a spell in _this_ round. And so in battles he’d set up enemies with crossbows, in hidden locations, who did nothing but take potshots at the PC spellcasters in order to force them to make Concentration checks. And given most arcane spellcasters’ AC, they would take at least _some_ damage from these potshots and have to make freakin’ Concentration checks _every single time_ they tried to cast a spell (and fail those checks almost every time, resulting in fizzled spells). I was sure that wasn’t right, and I went to the official forums and explained the situation (I didn’t want to argue about it at the table until I was sure I was correct). The unanimous answer I got was that the DM was completely bungling the rule interpretation there. As one person explained it, the DM would have been correct in 1E where a spell required starting casting in one round and the spell actually going off in the following round … because any damage they took would happen _while the spell was being cast_. Whereas in 3.x, where casting most spells can be started and completed on the same turn, damage taken in the previous round has no bearing whatsoever. Concentration checks are only required in the event of the caster taking damage _while the spell is being cast_. Which meant an enemy making a successful Attack of Opportunity during the casting. And then there was the bungling of the rules for Two-Weapon Fighting that would have, followed to its logical conclusion, had our ranger eventually making 16 _basic_ attacks per round, before all the Cleaves and Greater Cleaves were figured in. At level 7, this ranger was already going through entire crowds of enemies like a lawnmower, in a single turn, and then on my turn my fighter would pick an enemy (if any were left standing) and go “Whack. Okay, I’m done.” It was already taking, at level 7, 15 minutes just to resolve the ranger’s attacks during a single turn. I thought about what it was going to be like if we made it to level 20 and said, “Now waitaminnit!” Being brand-new to the game and having no experience with previous editions, I had bought the PHB and read it cover-to-cover in order to “catch up” to the more experienced players in the group. Over the course of many sessions, it became apparent to me that the DM hadn’t done more than skim the new rules. ---
**Author:** ![MHaye](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/bbe5ce/32.png) [@MHaye](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MHaye)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2012, 9:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-edition-of-d-d-coming/609179/73 "2012-01-18T09:02:55Z")
> [@Mister\_Rik](#): > > In another game he made the same kind of mistake with spellcasters having to make Concentration checks if they took damage while casting a spell. He was again assuming “Full-round Action” for spells, which, by his interpretation, meant that if the spellcaster took damage in the _previous_ round, a Concentration check was necessary before they could cast a spell in _this_ round. And so in battles he’d set up enemies with crossbows, in hidden locations, who did nothing but take potshots at the PC spellcasters in order to force them to make Concentration checks. And given most arcane spellcasters’ AC, they would take at least _some_ damage from these potshots and have to make freakin’ Concentration checks _every single time_ they tried to cast a spell (and fail those checks almost every time, resulting in fizzled spells). I was sure that wasn’t right, and I went to the official forums and explained the situation (I didn’t want to argue about it at the table until I was sure I was correct). The unanimous answer I got was that the DM was completely bungling the rule interpretation there. As one person explained it, the DM would have been correct in 1E where a spell required starting casting in one round and the spell actually going off in the following round … because any damage they took would happen _while the spell was being cast_. Whereas in 3.x, where casting most spells can be started and completed on the same turn, damage taken in the previous round has no bearing whatsoever. Concentration checks are only required in the event of the caster taking damage _while the spell is being cast_. Which meant an enemy making a successful Attack of Opportunity during the casting. While I agree that the DM was wrong in his methods, this is a case where he fell bass-ackwards into a legal result. You _can_ in fact, using 3.5 rules, arrange for a crossbowman to force a caster to make a C ---
**Author:** ![MHaye](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/bbe5ce/32.png) [@MHaye](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MHaye)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2012, 9:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-edition-of-d-d-coming/609179/74 "2012-01-18T09:07:44Z")
> [@Mister\_Rik](#): > > In another game he made the same kind of mistake with spellcasters having to make Concentration checks if they took damage while casting a spell. He was again assuming “Full-round Action” for spells, which, by his interpretation, meant that if the spellcaster took damage in the _previous_ round, a Concentration check was necessary before they could cast a spell in _this_ round. And so in battles he’d set up enemies with crossbows, in hidden locations, who did nothing but take potshots at the PC spellcasters in order to force them to make Concentration checks. And given most arcane spellcasters’ AC, they would take at least _some_ damage from these potshots and have to make freakin’ Concentration checks _every single time_ they tried to cast a spell (and fail those checks almost every time, resulting in fizzled spells). I was sure that wasn’t right, and I went to the official forums and explained the situation (I didn’t want to argue about it at the table until I was sure I was correct). The unanimous answer I got was that the DM was completely bungling the rule interpretation there. As one person explained it, the DM would have been correct in 1E where a spell required starting casting in one round and the spell actually going off in the following round … because any damage they took would happen _while the spell was being cast_. Whereas in 3.x, where casting most spells can be started and completed on the same turn, damage taken in the previous round has no bearing whatsoever. Concentration checks are only required in the event of the caster taking damage _while the spell is being cast_. Which meant an enemy making a successful Attack of Opportunity during the casting. While I agree that the DM was wrong in his methods, this is a case where he fell bass-ackwards into a legal result. You _can_ in fact, using 3.5 rules, arrange for a crossbowman to force a caster to make a Concentration check every round. The crossbowman “Readies an action to fire at a creature casting a spell.” When one of the ambushed party starts casting, the crossbowman attacks the caster. This is during the casting of the spell, so any damage will force a Concentration check. After that readied action is taken, the crossbowman’s action now occurs immediately before the spellcaster he attacked, allowing him to reload and ready to fire on spellcasters again. ETA : Reported part-post to be deleted. ---
**Author:** ![Crowbar\_of\_Irony\_3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f08c70/32.png) [@Crowbar\_of\_Irony\_3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crowbar_of_Irony_3)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2012, 9:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-edition-of-d-d-coming/609179/75 "2012-01-18T09:10:22Z")
I agree with **Mister Rik** in cases when the rules are interpreted wrongly causing one unable to enjoy the game. I don’t think there’s a hard and fast rule for when it is okay to be a rules lawyer or not; I tend to notice such disputes to happen more often in rules heavier games, which is why I try to avoid them. (Just curious, can you really use Dimensional Door to escape a grapple from Evard’s Black Tentacles?) ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2012, 9:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-edition-of-d-d-coming/609179/76 "2012-01-18T09:31:06Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > And there’s a build for a Crusader that manages to pull off infinite damage with each attack, using a toothpick (but oddly, it won’t work with anything bigger than a toothpick). My personal favourite was always the Artificer who’d reach omniscience by dunking his head in a bucket of water (because the drowning rules are silly). Then, after making some doodads, gained omnipotence by throwing himself off a cliff. ---
**Author:** ![Spectralist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Spectralist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spectralist)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2012, 11:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-edition-of-d-d-coming/609179/77 "2012-01-18T11:39:40Z")
> [@Crowbar\_of\_Irony\_3](#): > > (Just curious, can you really use Dimensional Door to escape a grapple from Evard’s Black Tentacles?) Looks like it. According to the d20srd you can [cast a spell while grappled](http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/specialAttacks.htm#grapple) if it: > [@d20srd](#): > > Cast a Spell > > You can attempt to cast a spell while grappling or even while pinned (see below), provided its casting time is no more than 1 standard action, it has no somatic component, and you have in hand any material components or focuses you might need. Any spell that requires precise and careful action is impossible to cast while grappling or being pinned. If the spell is one that you can cast while grappling, you must make a Concentration check (DC 20 + spell level) or lose the spell. You don’t have to make a successful grapple check to cast the spell. [Dimension Door](http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/dimensionDoor.htm) is a standard action and has no somatic or material components. So assuming you pass your concentration check you should be able to DD away. ---
**Author:** ![CandidGamera](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/candidgamera/32/2878_2.png) [@CandidGamera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CandidGamera)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2012, 2:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-edition-of-d-d-coming/609179/78 "2012-01-18T14:20:54Z")
> [@Jragon](#): > > Here’s [Pun Pun the super kobold](http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19869366/The_most_powerful_character._EVER.), which abuses several infinite loops. I find the new method dodgy since it involves assuming Pazuzu’s decision is already set from the beginning – but the old method (which is now, unfortunately, a wall of text) is pretty solid. Note that no (sane) DM will ever allow Pun-Pun to be played, the point is that the rules abuses exist. > > Edit: Though I guess it’s not only spellcasters – it’s not an infinite loop, but my friend once showed me a legitimate 10th level or so Dervish spec (may not have been pure Dervish) that got something like 10k attacks per round. I’m familiar with Pun-Pun. I guess that is an infinite loop, but it’s so far out there as to be obviously unintentional. With as many rulebooks as are involved, I think some quirks were bound to arise. The problem is clearly the Sarrukh species - and that’s a simple fix. “We’re not playing the Forgotten Realms, you can’t use the Sarrukh.” To bring us back to the original point, I don’t think Pun-Pun is a reflection on the ‘tier system’ or ‘if you can cast spells, you win’. Just a quirk of one poorly designed ability. On the bright side, re-reading the Pun Pun entry jogged my memory about where the feats were that allowed you to gain the abilities of creatures you wild-shape into. I was recommending them to my party’s new Druid, but couldn’t remember the source. ---
**Author:** ![CandidGamera](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/candidgamera/32/2878_2.png) [@CandidGamera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CandidGamera)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2012, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-edition-of-d-d-coming/609179/79 "2012-01-18T14:30:52Z")
> [@Brainiac4](#): > > Back on D&D Next (which is not yet being called 5th Edition by Wizards, and probably won’t be), the intent seems to be to create a meta-version of D&D that allows players and GMs to mix and match rules and options from the many editions to suit their tastes. EN World has a decent set of information: That’s interesting. I’ve been saying that I think the new D&D would benefit from a two or three tier approach - D&D Basic, with fairly stringent class roles and a limited menu of options, playing a lot like fourth edition; D&D where you have a pool of points to spend as you level up, so you can buy the things on the Basic list, or other things entirely, from an expanded menu; and then AD&D, where you still have ‘levels’, but the class system essentially goes away in favor of a point-buy system. And characters from each of the tiers use the same mechanics, so you could have one guy running a simple character, and another running an advanced one, and it wouldn’t matter much in terms of raw power. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpax181](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/3da27b/32.png) [@wolfpax181](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpax181)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2012, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-edition-of-d-d-coming/609179/80 "2012-01-18T19:08:09Z")
I will say this, I think each edition has done something right that makes it shine for me (and a lot of things wrong, but that’s what house rules are for). The biggest changes I’ve been happy about in the past two editions are the death of THAC0 with 3, and depth being added to the non-casters in 4th edition that doesn’t require you to go out of your way to add that depth through various source book feats that may or may not be allowed by your DM. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-edition-of-d-d-coming/609179.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-edition-of-d-d-coming/609179.md?page=5)