I think I figured out 4th ed

[TheUltramark]

we play on monday nights, so last night we were wrapping up and just discussing the variety of hatred for 4th Ed on this and other message boards.

One of our group made the perfect, crystal clear point which I will now steal and/or butcher:

in early editions of D&D it was difficult to have exciting adventures at the beginning levels (1-4). So much so, often games would start at level 5. Not only in our game, but when we merged onto the information superhighway we found a lot of folk that shared our theories.

4th Ed - basically eliminates the first 4 levels. I pan to do this later in life, but make a 2nd ED 5th level character, and a 4th ED character 1st level of the same class and compare them....strikingly similar.


all that said, this may be extremely old news for all you smart people, but i found it to be a startling revelation/epiphany

 

[Fifth Element]

I think you'll find a number of people disagree that exciting early-level adventures were difficult to have.

 

[darjr]

I really like earlier editions low level campaigning. It gives the game a grittier more nail biting exiting feel to the game that gradually can change to something more like the low level 4e kind of gaming as characters advance. I missed that in 4e.

 

[Vikarr]

I think you'll find a number of people disagree that exciting early-level adventures were difficult to have.

I think that is probable a difference of opinion, and if it was the design philosophy it's validity is irrelevant.

I really like earlier editions low level campaigning.

Me too I've always liked running low levels, but I also like running high levels, I think they both have their pros and cons.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I think you'll find a number of people disagree that exciting early-level adventures were difficult to have.

I frequenly had fun with low-level adventuring. And mid-level adventuring.




And high-level adventuring.

 

[Umbran]

I think you'll find a number of people disagree that exciting early-level adventures were difficult to have.

I'm sure - there have been millions of players, so there are bound to be plenty of conflicting opinions.

That doesn't say much with respect to the OP's thesis, though. Eliminating the period where a character was easily slain with one or two good blows does seem to have been a design choice.

 

[Mercurius]

It has been a frequently discussed topic, Ultramark. My personal view is that while early editions were too far at one extreme 4E went too far the other way. As you said, a 1st level 4E character is similar to a 4-5th level 1E character.

When I played AD&D (1 & 2E) I often liked to start games at 3rd level. The main problem with 1st level was with regards to magic-users: It isn't much fun to shoot your one magic missile and then be relegated to hiding behind the fighter, maybe weakly thwacking opponents with a quarterstaff. If I remember correctly, at least by 3rd level you had three spells, including one level 2 spell (e.g. sleep).

I've always favored the idea of an optional rules sub-system for 4E for "Apprentice Tier" which would essentially be a 0-level character. You could even broaden this into a few "levels," a Beginner, Novice, and Apprentice, or something like that, to give some differentiation and bit more expansiveness. But even just one level of Apprenticehood would add an interesting dimension to the game.

 

[King Nate]

I've always favored the idea of an optional rules sub-system for 4E for "Apprentice Tier" which would essentially be a 0-level character. You could even broaden this into a few "levels," a Beginner, Novice, and Apprentice, or something like that, to give some differentiation and bit more expansiveness. But even just one level of Apprenticehood would add an interesting dimension to the game.

Like the rules I created a couple years ago? My 1 blog entry.

 

[Fifth Element]

It has been a frequently discussed topic, Ultramark. My personal view is that while early editions were too far at one extreme 4E went too far the other way.

I agree with this assessment.

If I remember correctly, at least by 3rd level you had three spells, including one level 2 spell (e.g. sleep).

Dude, sleep's been a first-level spell since, like, forever.

 

[Herschel]

It has been a frequently discussed topic, Ultramark. My personal view is that while early editions were too far at one extreme 4E went too far the other way. As you said, a 1st level 4E character is similar to a 4-5th level 1E character.

4E characters have a little better durability, but so do the monsters. Rolling a 4 or better on the damage die no longer kills 'every' kobold and goblin in the monster manual. 4E left "insta-kills" in the form of minions and gave characters less to fear from house cats.