4E and "Old School Gaming" (and why they aren't mutually exclusive"

[buzz]

Not at all. You can play plenty of non-combat. The point is that there is no support for trading in combat effectiveness for additional non-combat competence.

This is a feature, not a bug.

(And there are always feats. Load up on SKill Focus, Skill Training, JoT, etc.)

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Not at all. You can play plenty of non-combat. The point is that there is no support for trading in combat effectiveness for additional non-combat competence.

Why is this important? Was this really a possibility in "Old School Gaming"? Could you make a Fighter that was worse at fighting but better at non-combat scenarios? The only class with a choice seemed to be the wizard...

(And actually, there is - there are lots of skill oriented feats that will not help you much in combat. The trade off is not the same as trading of your daily attack power against a non-combat utility power, but it's still a trade-off)

 

[Mallus]

This is a feature, not a bug.

Exactly.

Also, if you want your PC to be bad at combat, when you're turn comes up, have him or her do something stupid/less effective. This negates any combat competence that you find to be unwanted baggage.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Exactly.

Also, if you want your PC to be bad at combat, when you're turn comes up, have him or her do something stupid/less effective. This negates any combat competence that you find to be unwanted baggage.

And this makes the character significantly better at non-combat/ utility functions how?

 

[Mallus]

And this makes the character significantly better at non-combat/ utility functions how?

It doesn't. But those kinds of trade-offs were never part of D&D.

For example, it's not like 1e Thieves traded combat abilities in for non-combat ones. They were simply bad --in most situations-- at fighting but possessed thief skills.

Conversely, it's not like 4e Rogues traded thief skills for combat abilities. They are just as capable as their 1e counterparts in the robbin'-and-stealin' department. The only difference is that they now posses more general combat ability. And if that combat ability bothers you, you're free to downplay that with your choice of tactics.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

And this makes the character significantly better at non-combat/ utility functions how?

Sacrificing combat ability for noncombat ability was bad for the game as a whole, and as such this option was largely removed from the game. Good riddance.

 

[Fifth Element]

Outside of really Skullport and the Promenade where do the Lovecraftian Old Ones really present themselves in D&D?

Read his post again: "There are strains of an almost Lovecraftian incomprehensibility to many gods and demons".

You're taking a statement that essentially says "many D&D gods and demons have an incomprehensibility to them, almost in a Lovecraftian way" (note the use of "strains of" and "almost" in the post), and reading it as "Mike Mearls thinks Old Ones should be everywhere in D&D."

 

[ExploderWizard]

It doesn't. But those kinds of trade-offs were never part of D&D.

It's not like 1e Thieves traded combat abilities in for non-combat ones. They were simply bad --in most situations-- at fighting but possessed thief skills.

Since originally D&D RAW didn't include skills that could be shifted around thats a fair assessment.

Conversely, it's not like 4e Rogues traded thief skills for combat abilities. They are just as capable as their 1e counterparts in the robbin'-and-stealin' department. The only difference is that they now posses more general combat ability. And if that combat ability bothers you, you're free to downplay that with your choice of tactics.

4E rogues (and 3E too really) are videogame ninjas. I don't know how else to explain how a lockpicking, trap finding, stealthy robber suddenly became a master of melee DPS. I don't have books handy right now so I shall ask. Is there anything in 4E that makes the rogue actually better at thievery than another character assuming the same race and stats?

 

[justanobody]

Read his post again: "There are strains of an almost Lovecraftian incomprehensibility to many gods and demons".

You're taking a statement that essentially says "many D&D gods and demons have an incomprehensibility to them, almost in a Lovecraftian way" (note the use of "strains of" and "almost" in the post), and reading it as "Mike Mearls thinks Old Ones should be everywhere in D&D."

What I am saying is why can't they?

Deities and Demigods may have used two carefully written and copyright works, but it doesn't mean that they were not inspired from real world mythology, that can be placed into D&D.

I think it would add a bit more flavor to the gods than what exists, and that is something 4th edition sorely lacks is some flavor. Something to inspire you. Something "old school" gaming did. Be it going to look up these things for yourself to read about, or to create your own original ideas.

I was interested in what little viking information I had access to, but getting my hands on D&D made me want to look more into it, as well as Aztec and other mythology.

I think that added inspirational material would go a long way to getting back some of the old school feel and style of play. That kind where you want to know more about the world you are in, rather than trying to create the latest fantasy movie within your game, but create your own story with bits and pieces from many different things.

Lovecraft was a good one for taking old ideas and giving them new life, so what is wrong with D&D doing it? D&D cannot contain pagan or druidic old work references anymore from a mythological aspect, but can still have breasted dragons cutting the heads off of humans?

Has D&D become Lion Witch and Wardrobe fantasy like Charlie Brown with strong Christian overtones, and cannot deviate from that idea into real world mythology, but must create its own fake mythology?

 

[Mallus]

4E rogues (and 3E too really) are videogame ninjas.

I wouldn't use the word videogame... but sure, recent edition rogues are pretty ninja-ish (ninja-esque??).

I don't know how else to explain how a lockpicking, trap finding, stealthy robber suddenly became a master of melee DPS.

The explanation is pretty simple. The designers who worked on the recent editions decided that a) D&D characters get into a lot of fights and 2) it would be nice if all the character classes could make substantial contributions in them. The rest is history.

Is there anything in 4E that makes the rogue actually better at thievery than another character assuming the same race and stats?

Nope. A character of any class trained in the Thievery skill is as good as any other, assuming like race, stats and level. But why should a rogue be better at Thievery? Any character trained in Thievery is a thief, regardless of their class.