Why do people still play older editions of D&D? Are they superior to the current one?

Zardnaar · Mar 4, 2019

Celebrim said:
Let's not start that again. 4e models a very different reality than the one 1e does, not the least of which is Gygax never suggested that hit points ought to be easily recoverable from a night's rest. Let's not pretend otherwise. You can fully describe the reality that 4e models and defend it without resulting to spurious claims that it isn't any different than the one modelled by 1e. There are two huge differences.

And while it is true that every edition is horrible at modeling injuries and generally does not try, injuries in 4e are actively deprecated as even a thing. There is a scale to this. There are differences in degree. The last thing we need is to resurrect one of the great battles of the edition war, namely, that 4e was actually truer to 1e than 3e had been.

Go to a grog board and find out their opinion on 4E lol. Go there and compare it with 1E, if you think they don't like 3E their opinion of 4E is even lower.

Rather than argue about what models damage better I think its just better to look at rapid healing vs 1-3 hp. What one you like better is up to you. OSR has combat as dangerous, modern D&D is more kick in the door. Kick in the door in AD&D you might find yourself a level or 2 lower (or dead). Ones gritty ones not, what you like is up to you.

It was quite funny running AD&D for modern gamers, I did warn them about the differences going in. Sure enough they were tapping the ground with a 10' pole, rolling marbles around looking for slopes and using Elves to look for secret doors. Well actually everyone did once they found out everyone was roughly as good at it as anyone else.

Retreater · Mar 4, 2019

Zardnaar said:
Go to a grog board and find out their opinion on 4E lol. Go there and compare it with 1E, if you think they don't like 3E their opinion of 4E is even lower.

Rather than argue about what models damage better I think its just better to look at rapid healing vs 1-3 hp. What one you like better is up to you. OSR has combat as dangerous, modern D&D is more kick in the door. Kick in the door in AD&D you might find yourself a level or 2 lower (or dead). Ones gritty ones not, what you like is up to you.

It was quite funny running AD&D for modern gamers, I did warn them about the differences going in. Sure enough they were tapping the ground with a 10' pole, rolling marbles around looking for slopes and using Elves to look for secret doors. Well actually everyone did once they found out everyone was roughly as good at it as anyone else.

I don't dislike OD&D because it's "gritty." It's because your mechanical choices matter very little. Trying to sneak past a guard station of 6 kobolds (which are basically as good as 6 characters), your thief has a 14% chance to sneak past them. Your other classes can't even attempt it. Prodding the floor with a 10' pole every step of the way is as passive way of playing as relying on Passive Perception in 4/5E.

Tony Vargas · Mar 4, 2019

Retreater said:
I don't dislike OD&D because it's "gritty." It's because your mechanical choices matter very little. Trying to sneak past a guard station of 6 kobolds (which are basically as good as 6 characters), your thief has a 14% chance to sneak past them. Your other classes can't even attempt it. Prodding the floor with a 10' pole every step of the way is as passive way of playing as relying on Passive Perception in 4/5E.

True, mechanical choices matter a great deal in 3.x(or PF or 4e/E - even 2e, to a lesser extent), while they matter less in 5e or 1e AD&D where choices you make in your interaction with the DM are far more important.

But that's part of the point. Zard's players ended up poking around with 10' poles and having everyone look for secret doors because that's what he, as the DM, allowed to work. It was just a matter of fumbling about with the rules for a bit before determining that doing so consistently led to failure, then fumbling about outside them until you found something that worked. Then doing that. Constantly.

Decisions matter either way, just a different set of decisions.

Zardnaar · Mar 4, 2019

Note I don't regard the OSR thief as good design or positive part of OSR gaming. The 3.X Rogue translated to AD&D is probably a better example of where I think the thieves power should be.

If I were to make my own clone I would probably start with the 4E or 5E engine tweaked to make AD&D 3E, a new 4E or a fixed 3.5.

Then you would just plug in the class design you want and design other things around that.
A tweaked 5E champion could also work well in a new B/X type game and you could use a simple 5E type skill system and add micro feats if desired. Some of the clines are well done but you could go a bit further IMHO. To fix 3.x I would reverse some of the decisions they made from 2E to 3E. To fix 4E I would look more at 5E and Star Wars Saga.

I own OD&D but look more at 1E or B/X for OSR gaming. OD&D isn't that good IMHO.

Some things that are obsolete could be redone as well as I liked the concept but execution was off. Prestige classes and microfeats come to mind.

Salamandyr · Mar 4, 2019

Retreater said:
I don't dislike OD&D because it's "gritty." It's because your mechanical choices matter very little. Trying to sneak past a guard station of 6 kobolds (which are basically as good as 6 characters), your thief has a 14% chance to sneak past them. Your other classes can't even attempt it. Prodding the floor with a 10' pole every step of the way is as passive way of playing as relying on Passive Perception in 4/5E.

This is a common mistake, and understandable. I know a lot of 1st edition games that played exactly thus. That impression has led to a whole host of players moving to skill based systems over the decades.

The Crimson Binome · Mar 4, 2019

MwaO said:
You might want to check out page 274 in DMG. Monsters literally increase defenses and to-hit at the exact same rate that PCs are expected to get bonuses in defenses, to-hit and attack.

The difference is that 4E assumed you would only fight things of roughly-equal level, while 5E characters are supposed to fight things of any level up to their own. A fighter in 4E needs their +3 weapon to stay on track with expected foes, while a fighter in 5E can keep using their +1 weapon forever, and won't notice anything wrong in most instances. While the latter character will be relatively less accurate than they probably should be against harder foes, the fact that at-level encounters are less frequent means that there's not a huge sample size for that deficiency to make itself felt.

Zardnaar · Mar 4, 2019

Saelorn said:
The difference is that 4E assumed you would only fight things of roughly-equal level, while 5E characters are supposed to fight things of any level up to their own. A fighter in 4E needs their +3 weapon to stay on track with expected foes, while a fighter in 5E can keep using their +1 weapon forever, and won't notice anything wrong in most instances. While the latter character will be relatively less accurate than they probably should be against harder foes, the fact that at-level encounters are less frequent means that there's not a huge sample size for that deficiency to make itself felt.

That is a misconception, PCs can face monsters whose CR is far above their level. Its based on xp and as the higher you go the more the gap increases.
For example level 7 PCs can encounter CR 12/13 critters RAW.

The Crimson Binome · Mar 4, 2019

Zardnaar said:
That is a misconception, PCs can face monsters whose CR is far above their level. Its based on xp and as the higher you go the more the gap increases.
For example level 7 PCs can encounter CR 12/13 critters RAW.

I suppose, but you're expected to die in those cases, in which case your accuracy isn't super relevant. Anyone can trip over the Tarrasque, regardless of your level or the edition you're playing.

The meta-game guidelines for 4E are that you should encounter monsters that are within two levels of your own (IIRC). The meta-game guidelines for 5E are that you should encounter a certain XP budget worth of monsters and that none of those monsters should be higher level than the PCs. You're free to ignore the guidelines, but whether the encounter turns lethal because a single monster is higher level, or whether it's because the XP budget for that fight is too high, both cases are because you've ignored the guidelines. The XP budget guidelines aren't somehow more canon than the level-limit guidelines. They're all just suggestions.

Lord Shark · Mar 5, 2019

/ "I don't want to start the edition wars again, but..."
// immediately repeats all the same crap we've been hearing since 2008

MwaO · Mar 5, 2019

Saelorn said:
The difference is that 4E assumed you would only fight things of roughly-equal level, while 5E characters are supposed to fight things of any level up to their own. A fighter in 4E needs their +3 weapon to stay on track with expected foes, while a fighter in 5E can keep using their +1 weapon forever, and won't notice anything wrong in most instances. While the latter character will be relatively less accurate than they probably should be against harder foes, the fact that at-level encounters are less frequent means that there's not a huge sample size for that deficiency to make itself felt.

Honestly, that's really marketing at play. Both games can kind of work when you don't follow system guidelines. 4e actually works a bit better mechanically, just players know that's not supposed to happen, and get unhappy.

Really is what happens when you only expect to have Stat+Enh as a bonus to damage vs say Stat+Feat+Item+Enh...