Will the real 4E please stand up?

[Hussar]

Personally, I see nothing retro about 4e. It seems to me that the game has nothing in common with BECMI.

4e has a highly tactical combat system that requires the use of a battlemat. The characters are highly customizable and begin 1st level as already quite competent... the list could go on.

4e is a very modern game.

Oh sure, it's pretty difficult to do a point by point comparison between a 64 page rule book and almost a thousand pages. Heck, even if you include Expert Rules in there, you're still way under any single 4e book. So, yeah, there's gonna be some mechanical differences.

But, as others have pointed out, stylistically, this looks a LOT more like Basic/Expert than 3e. Monsters that are simply things to be killed with the expectation that the DM will build his own world to explain them. Kinda like how Keep on the Borderlands was a very basic framework from which the DM was expected to fill in. 'Course, there is a difference there as well - this time 'round you're actually given some pointers on how to fill in the blanks. Basic/Expert was a little light in that regard.

Narrow classes. Granted, they're not as narrow as Basic/Expert classes, but, there is still the expected path laid out for you.

On the point about "competent 1st level characters". A 1st level fighter in Basic D&D has plate mail and a shield, giving him a 2 AC without any Dex bonus (Plate is 60 gp, you roll 3d6x10 for gold - buying plate, shield and a sword isn't too difficult). Anything you meet at that level is going to need an 18 or so to hit you. So, while you don't have a lot of hit points, nothing ever really hits you too much.

Add to that the expectation of 6-8 PC's, plus hirelings/henchmen/cannon fodder, and you'll find that Basic D&D characters are actually pretty sturdy.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

I wrote a point by point reply on why 4E>BECMI

The server ate it.

So, in short: 4E has more charecter, monsters, tactical...options, more robust rules, does not require the DM to be a master of improvisation and on the fly rules adjudication and creation and is not harder to play in practice, has a real skill system....

All of the above I would consider flaws.

 

[Fifth Element]

All of the above I would consider flaws.

Seriously? Not requiring the DM to be a master of improvisation is a flaw?

 

[Simon Atavax]

Ah, edition wars, you want edition wars:

4E IS THE ULTIMATE EDITION 'CUZ:

-Easier to Play
-Has many, many interesting options
-Makes better use of classes
-Makes better use of races
-Makes better use of skills
-Makes better use of spells
-Makes MUCH better use of monsters
-Best combat
-Most support for non-combat situations
-Solid DM advice
-Solid supporting material
-Still D&D

Don't forget: "It's fun!!1!one1!! And other editions weren't as fun!11!!!1one11!"

(pretty much an exact quote from the 'Wizards Presents' booklets)

 

[The Little Raven]

Seriously? Not requiring the DM to be a master of improvisation is a flaw?

And apparently offering more options for characters, monsters, and tactics is a flaw as well.

 

[pemerton]

Personally, I see nothing retro about 4e. It seems to me that the game has nothing in common with BECMI.

<snip>

4e is a very modern game.

I tend to agree.

4E paragon paths = druid, paladin/knight/avenger rules
4E epic destinies = epic paths

Epic destinies don't seem to me to resemble epic paths when it comes to the details of play. Epic paths are goals to be accomplished during play, with great difficulty. Epic destinies are not a goal of play, they are an inherent part of the character build rules and give the player a degree of control over the endgame for his/her PC.

 

[M.L. Martin]

After looking for this article in my Dragon compendium, I want to post a minor correction: it is in #143, and the author is Paul Hancock.

I may have muffed the title, but I definitely was referring to the editorial in DRAGON #163.

That was one of the first two issues of DRAGON I ever owned; that kind of stuff stays with you.

 

[pemerton]

Ah. That would also explain why the Hancock article (which does have the title you gave, "The Highs and Lows of Fantasy", didn't seem to be quite on-topic (it's more relevant to the Mundane vs Fantastic thread).

Having now read the editorial (which does refer back to the Hancock piece) I still have to make one small correction - it was authored not by Roger Moore (editor at the time) but by the assistant editor, Dale Donovan.

 

[howandwhy99]

There is no spiritual successor. D&D is just out of print, not out of date.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Seriously? Not requiring the DM to be a master of improvisation is a flaw?

Well, I don't know about a master, but a dm should be good at it. Just as a shortstop should be able to catch a ground ball. Coming up with stuff on the fly and snd making rulings that have no precedence in the rulebooks are what makes dning fun. Otherwise (to continue my baseball analogy), it's just umpiring.