Favourite D&D edition that’s not 5E

Tony Vargas said:

Every edition did that, it just did it with varying degrees of effdup class balance, mechanical dysfunction, and smoke & mirrors. 4e just did it with less of the first and more of the last.

Click to expand...

My point was more narrow, I think, than what you've taken it to be.

I was simply saying that the growing numbers on the PC sheet in 4e serve a purpose - namely, in conjunction with the published Monster Manuals they support a very clear "pacing", not at the encounter level or even session level but at the level of the campaign arc.

Eliminating the level-bonuses on the PC and NPC/creature side obviously won't change any of the maths of resolution. But it would destabilise this default arc. Whether that would be good or bad is of course a matter of opinion.

Tony Vargas said:

The desire to keep lower level monsters relevant lies, IMHO, in the genre convention of the mighty hero or wizard laying waste to many foes.

<snip>

So every edition tried to do it.

And every edition failed.

<snip>

4e, of course, failed due to the illusion of the Treadmill

Click to expand...

You must have played a different 4e from me! 4e makes the "laying waste to many foes" easy to set up, using minion and/or swarm rules.

I'm also not sure what you mean by "the illusion of the Treadmill".

What's the illusion? Everyone knows that the numbers getting bigger on this side are matched by the numbers getting bigger on that side. Everyone knows that the basic maths of resolution is not changing. That's part of what makes the game run smoothly.

The "advancement" in 4e occurs (i) in the fiction, as broadly set out in the PHB and DMG descriptions of "tiers of play", and (ii) in the range of non-to-hit-and-damage effects that are available to PCs both in and out of combat (eg stunning vs dazing, dominating, flying, teleporting long distances and crossing planar boundaries, etc).

pemerton said:

My point was more narrow, I think, than what you've taken it to be.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I spun off on a couple of tangents, there, I think.

I was simply saying that the growing numbers on the PC sheet in 4e serve a purpose - namely, in conjunction with the published Monster Manuals they support a very clear "pacing", not at the encounter level or even session level but at the level of the campaign arc.

Click to expand...

Sure, but that's nothing unique. Really, /levels/, foundational to all forms of D&D and many of it's imitators, do that - the numbers just give level some mechanical teeth.

Eliminating the level-bonuses on the PC and NPC/creature side obviously won't change any of the maths of resolution. But it would destabilise this default arc. Whether that would be good or bad is of course a matter of opinion.

Click to expand...

Hit points, damage, and number/complexity/power/versatility of powers & feats would still support that arc, though. That's what 5e BA did, relative to 4e. I tamped down the impact of level on d20 checks, and inflated hp/damage and spell progressions.

You must have played a different 4e from me! 4e makes the "laying waste to many foes" easy to set up, using minion and/or swarm rules.

Click to expand...

Easy to set up, sure. And it ticked the boxes for 'lesser foes are still a threat' (because minions with big attack/DEF numbers, and hordes modeled as individual swarms), and let all classes 'lay waste' dramatically, not automatically, via at least some AEs. (And Swarms worked, for casters to mow through, in 3e, and, again, in 5e, as well.) All true.

I'm also not sure what you mean by "the illusion of the Treadmill".

Click to expand...

But the illusion part was that you weren't, in a mechanical sense, laying waste to lesser foes /who were once very hard for you to lay waste to, 5 or 10 or 20 levels back/, but to purpose-designed pop-target minions "of your level" (who, yes, stipulated: could represent and even have the same exp value, as said past foes).

What's the illusion? Everyone knows that the numbers getting bigger on this side are matched by the numbers getting bigger on that side. Everyone knows that the basic maths of resolution is not changing. That's part of what makes the game run smoothly.

Click to expand...

Nod. And, if you always face exactly at-level foes, it creates an illusion that you haven't progressed, whereas, in, say 3.5, if you're high-level against same-level foes, the fighter is hitting them better than the rogue, and their failing their saves vs the wizard more often - unequal advancement means advancement is evident even when you're all advanced to the same level, facing same-level foes (it also means the game's sweet spot can't span that whole arc, only a sub-set of it).
If you go more than about +/-5 levels, play breaks down like in any other edition (very predictably so), thus it seems like you "can't" test/establish that you've progressed by reprising a battle against some much lower-level enemies that once gave you trouble - the DM /can/ of course, but you re-stat them back up to proximity to the PC's level to do so, just shifting them along from Solo>Elite>Standard>Minion>>Swarm.

The "advancement" in 4e occurs (i) in the fiction, as broadly set out in the PHB and DMG descriptions of "tiers of play", and (ii) in the range of non-to-hit-and-damage effects that are available to PCs both in and out of combat (eg stunning vs dazing, dominating, flying, teleporting long distances and crossing planar boundaries, etc).

Click to expand...

And if I'd just read a whole post through before replying, I'd've not had to type so much, above.

Tony Vargas said:

Hit points, damage, and number/complexity/power/versatility of powers & feats would still support that arc, though. That's what 5e BA did, relative to 4e. I tamped down the impact of level on d20 checks, and inflated hp/damage and spell progressions.

Click to expand...

Yes.

I'm not sure a hit-points/damage "treadmill" is inherently more virtuous than a to-hit/defence "treadmill". And it seems to have some side-effects ("sack of hp" monsters, for instance) that 4e largely avoided.

I will concede the following: many D&D players seem to regard a +2 to hit that is (roughly) matched by a comparable +2 to AC on the GM side as an "illusion" of advancement; whereas they regard getting a second attack per round, matched by a comparable doubling of hp on the GM side as "genuine"advancement. But personally I don't get it. It's all just numbers, whether you're doing it by way of addition or doing it by way of multiplication.

Tony Vargas said:

if you always face exactly at-level foes, it creates an illusion that you haven't progressed, whereas, in, say 3.5, if you're high-level against same-level foes, the fighter is hitting them better than the rogue, and their failing their saves vs the wizard more often - unequal advancement means advancement is evident even when you're all advanced to the same level, facing same-level foes (it also means the game's sweet spot can't span that whole arc, only a sub-set of it).

Click to expand...

I've played not much 3E, and so I may not be following this. But I think you're saying that, at upper levels in 3E, stark differences of competence emerge between PC builds that demonstrate particular dimensions of "advancement", and that 4e doesn't have this.

Because I haven't had the 3E experience I probably can't make the comparison. But I can compare to my AD&D experience. A high level 4e wizard doesn't play any more like a melee combatant than does a high level AD&D wizard. And a high level 4e fighter can't teleport or dominate. But that high level 4e fighter can charge into a swarm of *whatevers* and survive; which s/he couldn't do at 1st level. And the high level 4e wizard can conjure up flying steed for the party to ride, which s/he couldn't do at 1st level.

There are plenty of differences between AD&D and 4e, but I don't see the one that (I think) you're pointing to as a very striking instance.

Tony Vargas said:

Easy to set up, sure. And it ticked the boxes for 'lesser foes are still a threat' (because minions with big attack/DEF numbers, and hordes modeled as individual swarms), and let all classes 'lay waste' dramatically, not automatically, via at least some AEs. (And Swarms worked, for casters to mow through, in 3e, and, again, in 5e, as well.) All true.

But the illusion part was that you weren't, in a mechanical sense, laying waste to lesser foes /who were once very hard for you to lay waste to, 5 or 10 or 20 levels back/, but to purpose-designed pop-target minions "of your level" (who, yes, stipulated: could represent and even have the same exp value, as said past foes).

Click to expand...

I think that you've only stepped through a surface "illusion" into a deeper illusion here. Which is connected to the point that it's all just numbers.

Being able to beat more goblins because your to hit number dropped (say from 8 to 5 on the d20) and your number of attacks has grown (say from 1 per unit damage taken to 2 per unit damage taken, and you've tripled the amount of unit damage you can take) is just maths. If instead you can beat more goblins not because your to hit number has dropped nor your number of attacks grown, but your number of hits needed per goblin taken down hs decreased (because they're minions), well that's maths too.

It's not like the first involves or demonstrates some player skill that the second doesn't.

The player skill is all in engaging the encounter as set up by the GM, and that is what it is regardless of the advancement mechanism. And the "advancement" is in the fiction, and that is what it is regardess of the maths used to "model" and resolve it.

Wiseblood said:

I voted 2e. It was a tough call between 2e and 3e. Mechanics wise they both have plusses and minuses. Lore for 2e is miles and miles ahead. Last but not least art direction. For me Elmore, Caldwell and Easley are tops. I have nothing nice to say about Wayne Reynolds style.

4e has become better in my mind because of 5e. I doubt that makes sense.

Click to expand...

It makes perfect sense to me. 4e was basically the unpopular overweight nerd who, upon learning he would be transferring schools, lost a bunch of weight, learned about popular trends, and bought a new stylish wardrobe, and gave himself the nickname 5e.

Bigsta said:

It makes perfect sense to me. 4e was basically the unpopular overweight nerd who, upon learning he would be transferring schools, lost a bunch of weight, learned about popular trends, and bought a new stylish wardrobe, and gave himself the nickname 5e.

Click to expand...

And then he began smoking and drinking because all the older kids were doing it too.

Aldarc said:

And then he began smoking and drinking because all the older kids were doing it too.

Click to expand...

And at the end of the movie he realizes he gave up his original uniquely designed monster friends in favor of hit point bags that can occasionally cast spells.

Tony Vargas said:

Nod. And, if you always face exactly at-level foes. . .

Click to expand...

If you always face exactly at-level foes, I'd personally call that boring adventure design. On a per day basis, some encounters should be below level, some should be at level, and some should be above level. On a per adventure basis, some should also be so far above or below level that they're either a total breeze or so deadly the party shouldn't fight them.

pemerton said:

Yes.

I'm not sure a hit-points/damage "treadmill" is inherently more virtuous than a to-hit/defence "treadmill". And it seems to have some side-effects ("sack of hp" monsters, for instance)

Click to expand...

( I prefer "block of tofu" )

But, no, it's not, and I'm a little surprised that 5e got away with keeping everyone proficient exactly as good with their d20 checks as they leveled.

I suppose Expertise helps.

I've played not much 3E, and so I may not be following this. But I think you're saying that, at upper levels in 3E, stark differences of competence emerge between PC builds that demonstrate particular dimensions of "advancement", and that 4e doesn't have this.

Click to expand...

Correct. Your fighter might just graduate from being smashed to paste in one round by an ogre, to being pasted by a Giant, but you hit the giant on natural iterative rolls 3/8/13/18, while the rogue hits on 8/13/18. You may be dead, but you went down fighting definitively better than the rogue (and, between the two of you put hundreds of damage on said giant before the wizard Dominates it...)

Because I haven't had the 3E experience I probably can't make the comparison. But I can compare to my AD&D experience. A high level 4e wizard doesn't play any more like a melee combatant than does a high level AD&D wizard.

Click to expand...

Actually, with decent hps regardless of CON, and Close spells that could be cast safely in melee - barring the 1e MU casting Tenser's Transformation or Shapechange - yeah, he did. (So, for that matter does the max-concentration 3e Wizard... and the heavy-armored 5e Mountain Dwarf Abjurer.)

. But that high level 4e fighter can charge into a swarm of *whatevers* and survive; which s/he couldn't do at 1st level.

Click to expand...

well he could, at 1st level, if the whatevers were rats or something that constituted a 1st level standard.

I think that you've only stepped through a surface "illusion" into a deeper illusion here. Which is connected to the point that it's all just numbers.

Click to expand...

I suppose, ultimately, it's hard to prove that any one gaming illusion is more convincing than the next.

pemerton said:

Yes.

I'm not sure a hit-points/damage "treadmill" is inherently more virtuous than a to-hit/defence "treadmill". And it seems to have some side-effects ("sack of hp" monsters, for instance) that 4e largely avoided.

I will concede the following: many D&D players seem to regard a +2 to hit that is (roughly) matched by a comparable +2 to AC on the GM side as an "illusion" of advancement; whereas they regard getting a second attack per round, matched by a comparable doubling of hp on the GM side as "genuine"advancement. But personally I don't get it. It's all just numbers, whether you're doing it by way of addition or doing it by way of multiplication.

Click to expand...

shifting the treadmill from hit bonus and AC to damage and HP is just as illusory, yes, but there are some important differences. With an accuracy treadmill, you eventually reach the point where it’s impossible for you to miss enemies far enough below your CR, which in turn find it impossible to hit you. Shifting the treadmill to survivability makes the giant horde of low-level enemies tactic viable. It also makes the math you have to do every time you make an attack a little more manageable - adding a number from 1d20 + 11 is faster and easier to do for most people than 1d20 + 45. It also keeps d20 rolls swingy throughout a character’s career, though not everyone considers that a positive change.

The damage and HP treadmill has some issues, for sure. But if you want both advancement and challenge, there has to be a treadmill somewhere, and the problems caused by putting that burden mostly HP and damage are in my opinion less severe than the problems caused by putting it mostly on AC and attack bonus.

I have to say I'm a bit surprised that 4E is leading in the poll here. Not because I dislike 4E (I like it, actually) but because I had gotten the vibe that this forum leaned more anti-4E compared to RPG.net, where at the moment there are five (at least) Let's Read threads for various 4E products.