D&D 4E 4e Compared to Trad D&D; What You Lose, What You Gain

[Manbearcat]

I wouldn't even consider these hoverpods a threat, given their damage output, at this level. 2d8+7, twice per round, meh. Ignore them! Or just pick them up in area fire and eventually they'll be crisped. They seem kinda uninteresting really.

This is something that I have a problem with in some 4e monster design:

Lasers - too weak to make an impression at this level, the actual damage expression is applicable to mid-paragon.

Shields - so what?

Covering Fire - Still really too trivial to make much impression. I mean, yes, it may possibly cause something to happen, but is that something INTERESTING enough to be worth dealing with a recharge ability on 3 combatants?

I'm not saying this monster is not suitable, just that it isn't INTERESTING, at all. They will be like some flies buzzing around. You could just turn this into an aura that does 5 damage per round to anyone within 10 squares of a hovertank or something, simpler, and no less dramatic!

In terms of (basically a layered companion character on top of the PC's portfolio) PC deployment, I think you're missing their context in terms of how they hook into the primary objective.

1) The primary objective overall is to (a) get into the mother ship (1000 feet up) and (b) dispatch the Far Realm aliens and their temporal machinations.

In order to get 1000 feet up, you need to be able to fly (preferably to hover so stuns don't wreck you)!

2) The primary objective of dealing with the mother ship's proximity guardians is to defeat the encounter before the 5th round ticks (carrying Skill Challenge Failure/Success).

The hoverpods aid this in that they (a) provide fly (hover), (b) don't cost the heroes HPs/surges (unless the ships are destroyed in the course of extended, multiple waves due to being beyond 4 rounds, combat) therefore saving them for the long haul, and (c) provide ranged multi-attack for a y-axis intensive encounter with flying Minion drones where the major problem is the stalling Trap drone.

3) They're low cognitive workload (which is key given that players will still be able to deploy certain applicable utilities/abilities while piloting the pods...you don't want to add more handling time as players sort through further load-out).

In terms of the combat on the ground, they're just typicaly Skirmishers, but they aren't impeded by the Blocking and Hindering Terrain on the ground and their strafing is bulwarked by the lead tank (which in this case, would have been taken over by the Fighter in short order) and the other ATSTs which would be (theoretically) running interference against the Wizard/Rogue.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Oh, well, in the context of being on the PLAYERS side, then that is a whole different analysis. The covering fire will be seen as a 'last ditch maneuver' sort of thing that the players will perhaps forget, but may nevertheless get something out of, worst case a futile attempt to avoid some damage. The shields are still kind of meh, but again are one of those sort of GOOJFC things. Light cognitive load being desirable on that side of the fence, yes.

 

[Manbearcat]

Alright, back to the original thrust of the thread.

So assuming 1 of the Fighter/Rogue successfully deal with the mothership's request for authenticaltion, we would have the scenario where the PCs either:

1) Defeat the Minions/Trap before round 5 and gain success 5 (vs 1 failure), or...

2) Fail to defeat the encounter before round 5 and deal with another wave. Then if they win before round 8, they succeed. If they fail, the Time Reaper activates and the PCs are lost in time in some consequential moment in history that relates to one or all of their characters' Epic Destinies.

Assuming success, they'd be facing the puzzle to enter the hangar.

The way I'd resolve that in 4e would be a simple eggshell timer (probably 10 minutes). Correctly solve the puzzle before the timer goes off and they gain their final success which yields access to the mothership where a new conflict would ensue. Fail to do so and see the last sentence of (2) above.

---

In Trad D&D, things are happening differently.

1) Exploration Turn 1 will involve the Wizard casting Fly on him/herself while the Fighter and Rogue trying to activate the Hoverpods. Typically, they're rolling 1d6 and a 1 or a 2 (if some special circumstances allow greater odds of success) to find out what happens. I think in this case (with their exposure to alien tech prior, etc) I'd give them a 1/2 chance on the d6. Failure would initiate a trap (probably a self-destruct sequence or maybe it animates via AI and attacks).

2) Getting to the mothership would involve 3 to 6 Exploration Turns (360 feet per Turn for Fly, something comparable for the Hoverpods) depending on if its normal rate or 1/2 for obstacles (storm, strong winds, fog, maybe some sort of repulsion field by the mother ship).

So with 1 and 2 combined we're looking at between 2 and 3 (on the cusp of 4) Wandering Monster rolls.

3) Its very possible if a WM check hits on the way up that we see a similar situation where the mothership's request for authentication is the encounter.

Then, if the PCs don't deal with her request sufficiently, she deploys countermeasures (something similar, though not remotely as tactically deep given the combat engines) and we've got a combat. Or, maybe she takes over the vessels/tractor beams them into the hangar where a very dangerous (and resource costly) encounter ensues where the Fighter and the Rogue start off in a pickle (where Rogues, certainly Expert and even Champion Rogues, aren't terribly robust in symmetric, frontal, physical combat...not so in 4e or 5e).

 

[Garthanos]

1) Exploration Turn 1 will involve the Wizard casting Fly on him/herself while the Fighter and Rogue trying to activate the Hoverpods. Typically, they're rolling 1d6 and a 1 or a 2 (if some special circumstances allow greater odds of success) to find out what happens. I think in this case (with their exposure to alien tech prior, etc) I'd give them a 1/2 chance on the d6. Failure would initiate a trap (probably a self-destruct sequence or maybe it animates via AI and attacks). .

I am picturing a series of repetitive dex checks / saving throws just to fly the things and crashing to my death as an absolute likely possibility in 1e era. It was chock full of encouragement for save or die situations. A DM might choose otherwise but....

 

[Manbearcat]

I am picturing a series of repetitive dex checks / saving throws just to fly the things and crashing to my death as an absolute likely possibility in 1e era. It was chock full of encouragement for save or die situations. A DM might choose otherwise but....

Yeah, with BECMI, you’re looking at what I wrote above.

With 1e, you’re looking at either GM adjudicated percentile or roll under Ability Score with modifier (if after WSG release).

But yeah, some GMs (and I was certainly aware of the phenomenon as I’ve invoked it in these conversations many times) would create the dreaded compound probability problem for martial characters by making them roll consecutive piloting checks (which basically ensures failure shenanigans and incompetent martial PCs).

 

[Garthanos]

Yeah, with BECMI, you’re looking at what I wrote above.

With 1e, you’re looking at either GM adjudicated percentile or roll under Ability Score with modifier (if after WSG release).

But yeah, some GMs (and I was certainly aware of the phenomenon as I’ve invoked it in these conversations many times) would create the dreaded compound probability problem for martial characters by making them roll consecutive piloting checks (which basically ensures failure shenanigans and incompetent martial PCs).

I tend to argue it is not those DMs fault because a DM with the guidelines they were given as well as culture the game mechanics encouraged was being "reasonable".

One might in fact argue merely having a hypothetical DM in example navigate around the issue is not giving "rules matter" its due cause and effect.

Hence why I brought it up.

 

[Manbearcat]

I tend to argue it is not those DMs fault because a DM with the guidelines they were given as well as culture the game mechanics encouraged was being "reasonable".

One might in fact argue merely having a hypothetical DM in example navigate around the issue is not giving "rules matter" its due cause and effect.

Hence why I brought it up.

I definitely wouldn't say this is a case of me not giving "system matters" its due cause and effect.

If you want to dig deeper into this, we can find out precisely why the phenomenon of significant variance in GM adjudication in AD&D1e is precisely an issue of "system matters."

1) Secondary Skills don't entail any sort of skill the equivalent of "piloting" or "engaging with tech (alien or other)".

2) Adjudication of rolling under GM-determined relevant ability score or coming up with a percentile dice is invoked, but a tightly focused and coherent procedure for specific case studies and exception-handling is not...so GMs are left to filling in the gaps.

3) We do have a section of aerial movement; speed, class, etc.

4) We do have a section on training griffins, hippogriffs, pegasi, but how do we extrapolate anything from that (if there is any work to do there) in relation to learning and piloting alien tech? If a GM tries to extrapolate anything from that, they're going to come up with "no, you can't immediately handle this alien tech (because x number of weeks/months training and learning riding with an aerial mount). But again, I'm not sure there is good extrapolation there either from an sort of internal causality perspective or from a "we need a functional game that works" perspective.

5) We've got an aerial combat section that talks about several things:

a) Grappling being an issue for flyers.
b) Stability of platform for missile fire and aggregate penalties for firing until an action is taken to gain stability.
c) The inability to have functional melee on platforms that don't provide a means of gaining leverage.
d) Things you must pilot with your hands disallowing spell-casting and missile combat, but allowing the use of wands.

6) There is nothing about piloting high-tech items like speeder bikes, hoverpods, et al.

So GMs are left to fill in a ton of holes and make (or not make) assumptions and extrapolations which can significantly impact play. The "system matters" problem with all of the above when it comes to AD&D 1e is the nature of Gygaxian prose (the incoherent marriage of two types of language; "this is underwritten by abstract gaming/genre logic" and "x, y, z causal logic based on earth physics") and a DMG that is a system of discrete parts that often don't interface well with each other (or leave whole things missing or incoherent) rather than an elegant, consistent, holistic approach to language and rules text (see Moldvay Basic D&D).

So yes, AD&D 1e has a "system matters" aspect that is fundamental to what you're decrying, but not so much in the way that you're decrying it I think. You'll see me oftentimes sincerely cite "user error" when confronted by 4e detractors or detractors of specific system aspects of 4e like Skill Challenges. That is also a "system matters" issue, but very different from the "system matters" issues inherent to AD&D1e (where I won't cite "user error"...because good luck sorting all of that out).

 

[Garthanos]

2) Adjudication of rolling under GM-determined relevant ability score or coming up with a percentile dice is invoked, but a tightly focused and coherent procedure for specific case studies and exception-handling is not...so GMs are left to filling in the gaps.

The gaps (which one should expect in any game without extreme over detail) in 4e are filled with expectations of success and skill challenge mechanics where single success checks progress the story to a new stage and failures are "setbacks" and recoverable fail forwards ... instead of save or dies. (The earlier guidelines did have expectations that you present winnable but challenging situations though so I guess in a vague sense some of it was sort of kind of in there...right alongside monsters killing the characters because of one a bad die roll)

To me existent mechanics in general not specific to the situation do help create broad expectations and those affect both what players will declare to be their characters actions and the kind of results the DM considers reasonable to adjudicate.

I You'll see me oftentimes sincerely cite "user error" when confronted by 4e detractors or detractors of specific system aspects of 4e like Skill Challenges. That is also a "system matters" issue, but very different from the "system matters" issues inherent to AD&D1e (where I won't cite "user error"...because good luck sorting all of that out).

I just wanted to make sure that "user error" was not being invoked.

 

[Manbearcat]

The gaps (which one should expect in any game without extreme over detail) in 4e are filled with expectations of success and skill challenge mechanics where single success checks progress the story to a new stage and failures are "setbacks" and recoverable fail forwards ... instead of save or dies. (The earlier guidelines did have expectations that you present winnable but challenging situations though so I guess in a vague sense some of it was sort of kind of in there...right alongside monsters killing the characters because of one a bad die roll)

To me existent mechanics in general not specific to the situation do help create broad expectations and those affect both what players will declare to be their characters actions and the kind of results the DM considers reasonable to adjudicate.

The only thing I'll disagree with here is to say:

1) There are no "gaps" in 4e in the way there are "gaps" in AD&D. This is because:

a) 4e's rules, while not exhaustive, are nearly comprehensive and where they're not, the exception-based guidance is clear, wieldy, and intuitive.

b) Further, 4e is a holistic, focused design (which is one of the primary reasons why GMs who don't like it don't like it). All of the pieces and the ethos (both principles and expectation of tropes) are intimately integrated and transparent in their purpose. This further makes handling exceptions easy.

Contrast this with discrete, modular design where some things are well-integrated while plenty of others are not and the design is "unfocused" accidentally or intentionally (due to accommodate multiple playstyles...but in their doing, excluding another; see 5e accomodating AD&D and 3e but struggling with Moldvay Basic and certainly not accomodating 4e).

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I definitely wouldn't say this is a case of me not giving "system matters" its due cause and effect.

If you want to dig deeper into this, we can find out precisely why the phenomenon of significant variance in GM adjudication in AD&D1e is precisely an issue of "system matters."

1) Secondary Skills don't entail any sort of skill the equivalent of "piloting" or "engaging with tech (alien or other)".

2) Adjudication of rolling under GM-determined relevant ability score or coming up with a percentile dice is invoked, but a tightly focused and coherent procedure for specific case studies and exception-handling is not...so GMs are left to filling in the gaps.

3) We do have a section of aerial movement; speed, class, etc.

4) We do have a section on training griffins, hippogriffs, pegasi, but how do we extrapolate anything from that (if there is any work to do there) in relation to learning and piloting alien tech? If a GM tries to extrapolate anything from that, they're going to come up with "no, you can't immediately handle this alien tech (because x number of weeks/months training and learning riding with an aerial mount). But again, I'm not sure there is good extrapolation there either from an sort of internal causality perspective or from a "we need a functional game that works" perspective.

5) We've got an aerial combat section that talks about several things:

a) Grappling being an issue for flyers.
b) Stability of platform for missile fire and aggregate penalties for firing until an action is taken to gain stability.
c) The inability to have functional melee on platforms that don't provide a means of gaining leverage.
d) Things you must pilot with your hands disallowing spell-casting and missile combat, but allowing the use of wands.

6) There is nothing about piloting high-tech items like speeder bikes, hoverpods, et al.

So GMs are left to fill in a ton of holes and make (or not make) assumptions and extrapolations which can significantly impact play. The "system matters" problem with all of the above when it comes to AD&D 1e is the nature of Gygaxian prose (the incoherent marriage of two types of language; "this is underwritten by abstract gaming/genre logic" and "x, y, z causal logic based on earth physics") and a DMG that is a system of discrete parts that often don't interface well with each other (or leave whole things missing or incoherent) rather than an elegant, consistent, holistic approach to language and rules text (see Moldvay Basic D&D).

So yes, AD&D 1e has a "system matters" aspect that is fundamental to what you're decrying, but not so much in the way that you're decrying it I think. You'll see me oftentimes sincerely cite "user error" when confronted by 4e detractors or detractors of specific system aspects of 4e like Skill Challenges. That is also a "system matters" issue, but very different from the "system matters" issues inherent to AD&D1e (where I won't cite "user error"...because good luck sorting all of that out).

The 'systematic approach' in 1e is literally 'make up something that involves tossing some dice'.