Speculation about "the feelz" of D&D 4th Edition

[pemerton]

The keep generates the most income of the class strongholds

Not in 1st ed AD&D: clerics, fighters and MUs get 9 sp, 7 sp and 5 sp respectively per person on their estate per month. (I guess clerics have tithes; and MUs are either too busy to tax properly, or too scary to retain a population unless they offer them a discount!)

 

[Garthanos]

Why was the mage just standing there watching instead of sticking her nose in and trying to clobber something with her staff whenever she could?

Piss poor armor class and 1 shot death I suppose.... or were you being sarcastic.

 

[Nagol]

Not in 1st ed AD&D: clerics, fighters and MUs get 9 sp, 7 sp and 5 sp respectively per person on their estate per month. (I guess clerics have tithes; and MUs are either too busy to tax properly, or too scary to retain a population unless they offer them a discount!)

D'oh! You are of course correct.

 

[Garthanos]

Fourth edition is the first edition where it felt that fighters could do the job mentioned by Gary Gygax back in the DMG. He wrote of the fighting man protecting his allies. So with 4e we got Defenders with abilities to actually distract enemies and discourage them from attacking the fighters allies, for me that felt like D&D had finally fulfilled one of its earliest goals.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Agreed with all this (if we're talking about pre-4e D&D). I think 4e makes the paladin work pretty well as an archetype. And I think Conan would probably be doable in 4e too (at low levels probaby as a STR/DEX ranger; at higher leves as a warlord with maybe fighter multi-class - obviously if you want to play both over the longer term of a campaign, you need the GM to let you do a rebuild at some point).

Vis-a-vis Vance, you would need to introduce some sort of "buffer" or incentive for wackiness.

It's not just that classic D&D is gamist; but the game is all about caution and calculation. There are no mechanics to favour spontaneity. Even T&T - another pretty gamist game - probably does better than D&D at a pseudo- (and brutal) Vancian flavour, just becausee chance and spontaneity seem to figure more in play.

Right, that whole post was about classic D&D for sure. 4e is a VERY different beast in that sense. Conan is at least approachable from the game concept standpoint, as building a character in 4e who's core is "amalgam of instinct, ambition, and virtue" is well-within its wheelhouse. The mechanics might not quite match the S&S thematic treatment super well, but I think you can manage it with the right adventure design and etc. Certainly you handle Conan's "leap first, ask questions later" approach to things easily (though admittedly Conan can be quite measured, cunning, and systematic at times too, but 4e certainly can deal with that too).

5e won't do it too badly either. At least 5e combat is still less swingy than anything pre-4e. I never felt like 5e was punishing us for jumping into things a huge amount either. Its not quite on the scale of heroic adventure of 4e, but you CAN pull off some things, now and then.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I'm fairly sure there's provisions noted in 1e for giving xp for those sorts of things but there's no hard numbers anywhere I can remember; it's left up to the DM to decide what to give.

But if there's no traps etc. either, then there's not much risk in mapping an empty dungeon...so not much reward (xp) either.

Well, suppose you just scout really effectively, do a lot of research, talk to every former dungeon delver, etc and figure out how to avoid all the bad stuff without engaging with it? Yes, there's not a huge risk, but maybe that's because you spent a lot of table time mitigating it. That's sort of what's weird, you kinda get punished for that.

I mean, I'd say a good GM will give you XP for 'good play' or whatever, but the rules don't provide any guidance at all in 1e that I recall, and 2e's guidance is very particular (and 2e lost the 1gp=1xp for everyone paradigm, so you might get nothing even if you found the treasure unless you're a thief!).

Couldn't you get xp in 3e for some donwtime stuff e.g. spell research; or am I conflating in a house rule?

Lanefan

Yeah, that's possible. I'm pretty fuzzy on 3e and 3.5 details. I never ran either game and haven't read the books in any systematic way. So, I guess its possible that 4e is following exactly in 3e's footsteps here, though actually 4e's XP system mostly reminds me of 2e (combat and quests) but with the addition of formal non-combat encounters adding a structured XP dimension. Now, its also possible to just use free-form exploration in 4e, in which case you get basically the 2e XP system, but a little more structured. Its always the case that how people use a game in actual play is going to make a significant difference in how it functions.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Minor stuff perhaps; but they also get the best range of allowable weapons and armour, get more weapon proficiencies (remember, in 1e each different weapon is its own proficiency), and have less penalty when using a non-proficient weapon.

Right, he has a few of these small 'passive' advantages. His ability to use certain items COULD be very useful if they come up (IE the Rod of Lordly Might, possibly the strongest non-artifact in the game). Still, he's very narrow. His items all add to his combat ability, or maybe allow some enhanced leadership, or 'general athletics'. This can provide fighters that have specific abilities that go beyond hacking stuff up, and maybe even verge on some of the things wizards do by default, but overall its a pretty narrow shtick, even thieves have more (though maybe not better) options.

Keep in mind that by 9th level a 1e Fighter is probably rolling in wealth, so paying for a stronghold and people in it isn't that big a deal.

This is by no means a given though. There's no standard of wealth that exists in 1e. Beyond that if you play 'by the book' a HUGE, almost overwhelming, portion of a character's wealth is sucked up by training (I believe it is 1500gp x your level/level to reach the next level, multiplied by a DM determined 'quality factor'). If the DM sticks to that rule its unlikely you'll be very rich at all, unless he also gave out some outsized treasure hordes, or you got real lucky on the random treasure tables.

It certainly SEEMS like a lot of 1e would need rather rich characters to engage with (hirelings, freeholds, etc) but at the same time the game mechanics seem to point to a scenario where one scratches for every penny, even at name level.

I disagree about the "interesting to play" bit. A fun, interesting character doesn't need game-mechanics backing for everything that makes it tick (a philosophy cruelly squashed by 3e in particular).

And yet a thorough lack of such mechanics doesn't HELP, does it. The game basically says "your job is to break things, move heavy objects, and make sure the majority of monsters are engaged, and maybe kill them if they're not a really dire threat that warrants a spell." I agree that your character could be interesting, but so could the wizard in the same sense, and he's got a lot more 'game' to fall back on. I think we all played fighters, and nobody thinks you can't have a good time or anything, but lets not pretend you're on a par with an MU or a cleric/druid/illusionist except maybe at levels 1-5 at best.

My namesake character here - Lanefan - is a single-class 1e Fighter...has been since 1984...still active today and still a blast to play!

Well, I had a 1e ranger (has a few extra features, but not really much, and spell-casting that is utterly trivial) and he's a lot of fun too, do the character's history, etc. I'd just say again that such histories, quirks, etc COULD belong to any character of any class. I don't understand why people trot them out as positive aspects of the 1e fighter when they don't attach to that class in any particular way. Is it just that you have no other way to engage with that character? I mean, my 14th level 1e wizard "Questioner of All Things" is a pretty interesting character too. He also casts 7th level spells and usually runs the show if he's around. Maybe I don't always feel like doing that, so my ranger, assassin, or thief get some playing time.

 

[Lanefan]

Piss poor armor class and 1 shot death I suppose.... or were you being sarcastic.

Wasn't being sarcastic at all.

At very low levels in 1e one-shot death is a risk for anyone, really, except Rangers with their extra hit die. As for AC, yes it's poor (usually relying on Dex) unless you've got Phantom Armour (Illusionist) or Mage Armour or similar going; then it's fine.

But in any case to me standing in and at least giving it a try is preferable to staying back and watching.

Well, suppose you just scout really effectively, do a lot of research, talk to every former dungeon delver, etc and figure out how to avoid all the bad stuff without engaging with it? Yes, there's not a huge risk, but maybe that's because you spent a lot of table time mitigating it. That's sort of what's weird, you kinda get punished for that.

I mean, I'd say a good GM will give you XP for 'good play' or whatever, but the rules don't provide any guidance at all in 1e that I recall, and 2e's guidance is very particular (and 2e lost the 1gp=1xp for everyone paradigm, so you might get nothing even if you found the treasure unless you're a thief!).

Yes, as written it doesn't really work as intended, I don't think...which is why (as with so many such instances across all editions) many if not most DMs just tweaked it to work better.

Then again, in 1e xp is to be given for an avoided encounter just as if it was a defeated encounter, so (if followed to the letter) talking to former dungeon delvers etc. and learning what to avoid would in fact get you the xp once you went into that adventure and duly avoided it. This is one thing I think later D&D versions would do well to include* and-or more greatly emphasize in order to give stealth parties their due; and as a side-effect point to there being ways to approach an adventure that don't start and end with all guns blazing.

* - maybe not word for word, but some sort of variant that rewards for encounter avoidance on a par with encounter defeat.

This is by no means a given though. There's no standard of wealth that exists in 1e. Beyond that if you play 'by the book' a HUGE, almost overwhelming, portion of a character's wealth is sucked up by training (I believe it is 1500gp x your level/level to reach the next level, multiplied by a DM determined 'quality factor'). If the DM sticks to that rule its unlikely you'll be very rich at all, unless he also gave out some outsized treasure hordes, or you got real lucky on the random treasure tables.

It certainly SEEMS like a lot of 1e would need rather rich characters to engage with (hirelings, freeholds, etc) but at the same time the game mechanics seem to point to a scenario where one scratches for every penny, even at name level.

If you look through some of the classic 1e adventures there's boatloads of treasure just waiting to be found; for example a small-ish party of 4 to 6 characters could very easily come back from A-2 Slavers' Stockade with a treasury good for each of 'em clearing 40K g.p. or more as their share, assuming roughly DMG prices for magic items.

Training costs are a nice way to drain some of it. You're being a bit harsh though, if you're charging a root 1500 x (level squared) before DM adjustments. According to the 1e DMG it's a more linear 1500 x level per week, where the length of time in weeks is a result of the DM adjustments for good play etc. which makes it kinda random. (personally, I've never used the DM adjustment part)

And yet a thorough lack of such mechanics doesn't HELP, does it. The game basically says "your job is to break things, move heavy objects, and make sure the majority of monsters are engaged, and maybe kill them if they're not a really dire threat that warrants a spell."

The game says that only if you want to read it that way; never mind that even just what you've written there could represent full-time job description. The lack of mechanics is a feature to me, as it means I don't have to think about them.

I agree that your character could be interesting, but so could the wizard in the same sense, and he's got a lot more 'game' to fall back on. I think we all played fighters, and nobody thinks you can't have a good time or anything, but lets not pretend you're on a par with an MU or a cleric/druid/illusionist except maybe at levels 1-5 at best.

That depends.

What I'm finding as we get into higher levels* (beyond about 9th-ish) is that the front-liners are becoming more useful (and necessary!) again largely because there's so many situations arising where spells don't always help much; be it null- or wild-magic zones, adventuring off-plane where magic goes screwy and-or spells cannot be recovered, foes with high magic resistance or outright immunity, and so forth.

* - I currently play in one game of levels 8th-10th, another (part-time) of 9th-11th, and DM one of 6th-10th, all 1e-based.

There is, to be sure, a run between about 5th and 8th where the casters have their day, no doubt of that.

Lanefan

 

[Garthanos]

Wasn't being sarcastic at all.

Not convinced...
It was an idiots gamble to wade into the fray with that low level magic user and you know it (particularly how you described it) but I guess the mechanics encourage the motto and practice to "never name your character till level 5". So you were gambling a faceless nameless pawn -- so much for role playing an actual "character" with backstory or identity. I would argue it encouraged highgrade character "cowardice" and for many players rote practices for optimizing character safety. I saw worksheets of boring step by step dungeon crawling procedures.

Found out years later that both Gygax and Arneson house ruled to start at higher levels LOL

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Then again, in 1e xp is to be given for an avoided encounter just as if it was a defeated encounter, so (if followed to the letter) talking to former dungeon delvers etc. and learning what to avoid would in fact get you the xp once you went into that adventure and duly avoided it. This is one thing I think later D&D versions would do well to include* and-or more greatly emphasize in order to give stealth parties their due; and as a side-effect point to there being ways to approach an adventure that don't start and end with all guns blazing.

* - maybe not word for word, but some sort of variant that rewards for encounter avoidance on a par with encounter defeat.

I think to be perfectly honest EGG understood and based on what [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] has dug out of DMG and PHB he had SOME SORT of process he went through, but he surely didn't explain it in any coherent way that could be closely reproduced. No doubt we all 'figured it out', so it wasn't really some crippling issue. It was just par for the course with 1e, you pretty much had to write the rules yourself based on tradition and the various obscure passages in the books. lol. I ran 1e and 2e for 15 or more years, so I don't even feel like its a burden at this point, but after running 4e I don't want to go back.

If you look through some of the classic 1e adventures there's boatloads of treasure just waiting to be found; for example a small-ish party of 4 to 6 characters could very easily come back from A-2 Slavers' Stockade with a treasury good for each of 'em clearing 40K g.p. or more as their share, assuming roughly DMG prices for magic items.

Training costs are a nice way to drain some of it. You're being a bit harsh though, if you're charging a root 1500 x (level squared) before DM adjustments. According to the 1e DMG it's a more linear 1500 x level per week, where the length of time in weeks is a result of the DM adjustments for good play etc. which makes it kinda random. (personally, I've never used the DM adjustment part)

Well, I'm just reading what it says in the books. Every time you go up a level you must train for a number of weeks equal to the new level x a DM determined 'RP factor' from 1 to 4. You must hire an expert of at least the new level to train you, and that expert will charge 1,500gp per week. That means the minimum price for reaching level 6 is 9,000gp, and if you have an 'RP factor' that isn't 1.0 (Perfect RP, player always acts in character and never meta-games in any avoidable way, players to his class-specific goals at all times, etc) then its somewhere north of that. So your hypothetical A-2 character gets 40k g.p. (which honestly seems a little high, but I'm not about to go unpack A2 and read it to see what's in it) then at least 10k of that is going to training. That would definitely leave a huge haul. All I can say is no AD&D 1e character of mine ever accumulated anything like that kind of wealth at that level. I even remember playing through that series of modules. We ended up around 8th level after A4 I think, but you also lose ALL of your possessions in that module, and definitely don't end up with even a copper piece (though you might have stashed some money or be able to go back and acquire some by revisiting some of the earlier locations).

The game says that only if you want to read it that way; never mind that even just what you've written there could represent full-time job description. The lack of mechanics is a feature to me, as it means I don't have to think about them.

Well, that's what I'm saying. The game isn't providing anything for you. We can all have fun with whatever, why does the game provide rules for magic? I mean I could just equally say it should be free-form and that would be better.

What I'm finding as we get into higher levels* (beyond about 9th-ish) is that the front-liners are becoming more useful (and necessary!) again largely because there's so many situations arising where spells don't always help much; be it null- or wild-magic zones, adventuring off-plane where magic goes screwy and-or spells cannot be recovered, foes with high magic resistance or outright immunity, and so forth.

* - I currently play in one game of levels 8th-10th, another (part-time) of 9th-11th, and DM one of 6th-10th, all 1e-based.

There is, to be sure, a run between about 5th and 8th where the casters have their day, no doubt of that.

Lanefan

Yeah, I don't know. My experience in 1e/2e was that much past 9th level you better be a spell caster if you wanted to really make any impact. Our parties were pretty much all-caster and defended by a series of items and enchantments that were designed to minimize any chance of these kinds of things happening.

If we were fighting something with magic resistance for instance then we did so by 'indirect attack' (collapse the room with Rock to Mud for example) which isn't bothered by MR (nor does it allow for saves, generally). We would also play in a 'total war' mode. OK, there's a dungeon containing a lich. We're not friggin going in after that bastard! Are you crazy? 6 months of passwalls, excavation, dig spells, etc and Mr Lich's hideaway is no longer so hidey! (I mean I'm just making up an example, but this was the sort of things we did). Obviously sometimes you just gotta dive in, but carefully, systematic, and very Clausewitzian approaches to dealing with our problems were the norm. We always had backup plans, contingencies, drills for different scenarios, etc. Once we went into a place it was like a NASA Moon Shot, every phase was mapped out, planned, spell load-outs were built around it, scrolls were penned, exact tactics executed, and if things weren't right, screw it we'd just pull out and make another plan.

In that environment casting was so premium that the most we would ever do was maybe have a couple guys that were MC fighters, maybe a bard, something like that. You better have access to 5th level spells, or you were probably not pulling your weight.

I'm not saying our group was typical! Of course the main DM that I played with amped up the opposition to preposterous levels in the end. One of our operations was penetrating a CITY filled with 1000's of beholders. The nasty MM kind. We never did really root out that place, it was just impossible. Still, we made multiple forays and figured out ways to defeat waves of beholders at a time, which was no small feat (it was expensive too as I recall, the bastards were always disintegrating expensive equipment!).