4E with 1E Feel: Does that appeal to you?

[justanobody]

Is that Skeleton wearing the shield around its neck? Thats not how it is supposed to work, right?

No the thing around his chest is a bandelero that may hold daggers or a sword scabbard, etc. You can see the sword scabbard near the bottom of the shield.

 

[Imp]

Agreed. I can't speak for Exploder, but I was also advocating scrolling back the rogue's combat utility.

I don't want to see anyone sitting out in combat. I just don't like everything balanced around combat. The rogue shouldn't be a "Striker" in the sense that he dishes out obscene damage in pretty much every combat. That's the fighter's schtick (though I kinda like that the ranger and barbarian might be able to out-do the fighter under certain circumstances).

Honestly – and I like rogues, I do – it seems like it'd be more in-genre to have the small, quick, tricky guy running interference & setting things up for the swordmaster 70% of the time, and getting crucial deadly shots in every now and then, as opposed to the way it's conceived now, where the big weapons guy does the setups: "watch out for the swordsman, but the guy you really need to be scared of is that little guy in the black with the knife." But I don't know how you'd do this really.

 

[Delta]

Agreed. I think you could more easily have "D&D" after removing the cleric than you could after removing the thief/rogue.

I can confirm this -- That's exactly how I've been playing lately, and for me, I'm happy to say it's the best-tasting D&D I've ever played. (Link below.)

 

[Dausuul]

Can we get 4E with a White Wolf feel?

 

[Obryn]

To me, a 1e feel is all about the adventures, not about the rules system.

There's a certain magic in those 1e adventures, like Temple of Elemental Evil; Tomb of Horrors; D123; G123; and even friggin' Dungeonland that I haven't seen recaptured. Gygax was a genius for compelling adventures.

I tried to run an oldschool-style 3e game, complete with the Wilderlands box set and plenty of DCC's seeded about. They had some good stuff going for them, but I don't think any of them approached those great 1e modules. I dunno; something was just missing from them.

I like 4e as 4e. I don't know whether or not I'd like 4e as 1e - but I'm skeptical. I like the rules system so far, I love the kinds of adventures it supports, and I'd need to be convinced a 1e-ized 4e would be a fun game to play in and of itself.

Now, with that said, I also love 1e-style adventuring. But really, if I want to run 1e modules, I might as well run 1e. I still have all my 1e books laying around, after all.

-O

 

[Remathilis]

Honestly – and I like rogues, I do – it seems like it'd be more in-genre to have the small, quick, tricky guy running interference & setting things up for the swordmaster 70% of the time, and getting crucial deadly shots in every now and then, as opposed to the way it's conceived now, where the big weapons guy does the setups: "watch out for the swordsman, but the guy you really need to be scared of is that little guy in the black with the knife." But I don't know how you'd do this really.

Same problem. Rogues have recently gained the swashbuckler archetype: lightly armed and armored, but with speed skill and panache, manage to hold their own in combat. The problem has been D&D doesn't know how to do that. The game rarely rewards movement in combat (AoOs) and with plate and dexterity both doing roughly the same thing (raising AC) and damage primarily a function of strength (defeating our quick but deadly guy) the only ways to make a functioning agile combatant is to a.) give him more attacks a round to make up for hitting weaker or b.) allow their blows to do more damage, becoming a glass-cannon or sorts (compared to a fighter/tank, who can take a blow, but doesn't give as much). Neither seems desirable, but D&D has drifted toward the latter than nothing at all since it seems easier to balance than giving rogue scores of attacks.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Agreed. I can't speak for Exploder, but I was also advocating scrolling back the rogue's combat utility.

I don't want to see anyone sitting out in combat. I just don't like everything balanced around combat. The rogue shouldn't be a "Striker" in the sense that he dishes out obscene damage in pretty much every combat. That's the fighter's schtick (though I kinda like that the ranger and barbarian might be able to out-do the fighter under certain circumstances).

What I'd actually like to see is a "Utility" role that has typical damage output like a Leader, but really shines in exploration/non-combat situations (skill challenges?). In combat, the Utility character would be doing steady, but not outstanding damage, plus some things that are somewhere between the Leader and Controller roles. Movement (foe, ally, or self) powers or condition-inducing powers are great examples. For rogues, make sneak attack an encounter power or cut its damage in half (or more).

Maybe my idea wouldn't work out, in practice. But, it's certainly the flavor I'd like to see from a rogue, diviner, illusionist, artificer, noble, archivist, and several other concepts that have floated around over the years.

The whole useless in combat thing illustrates why getting rid of the class altogether is the best idea. Have the skills and abilities available as an option for other classes to learn and the problem of giving a whole class something to do in combat takes care of itself. Suppose there was a build of fighter that did rogue type stuff? You could play a fighter with the rogue special skills which fits the Fafhrd archetype just fine. With a more DEX focused set of abilities you have the Gray Mouser and both can be fighters.

The problem is pigeonholing all fighters to some lame 'defender' role and thus limiting them to just heavy armor wearing brutes with heavy weapons while some jerk runs around with a knife outclassing thier damage capacity on a regular basis.

Melee DPS rogue types are not needed in a tabletop rpg, at least not a whole class worth.

 

[Dragonblade]

Chalk me up as another who feels that 4e is much closer to the game's 1e roots than 3e was. Even though we never played with minis or a grid in 1e, something about the way that 4e plays really evokes that 1e feel from me. Not completely of course, but 1e had a tactical feel to it in combat that 4e does a pretty good job of duplicating for me.

That tactical feel was lost in 2e and seemed lost even more in 3e despite 3e's reliance on minis.

 

[green slime]

I'm very sceptical.

But such is NG's reputation, that I'd be tempted to at least give them a chance.

But I seriously doubt they could pull it off for me.

 

[Engilbrand]

I haven't read most of the ideas in this thread. From what my players, Tom and Sarge, have said, 1st edition was very rules light. What can the character do? Well, whatever you can. The adventures were goofy and nutty and dangerous. It almost seems like people are confusing the "feel" of 1st edition with the "mechanics", or even the "feel of the mechanics".
Like I said, if I want an area to be strange, I can easily make it strange. Dark? Dangerous? Of course. Are they moving all over the map? Absolutely.
The reason that 3.5 didn't absolutely require a board was that you didn't need to know where anything was. "I'm in position to hit." For 4th edition, they use the board because it actually has gotten back to its roots. Its about moving yourself and your opponent. Reducing their abilities.
The "feel" seems to be the ability to make stuff up on the fly. I do that constantly. My players know that I don't plan. I plan the big stuff, the plot, but I don't plan anything that they're going to do during the game. I have a few ideas, but nothing is written down. They've actually been helping me to create the game without even realizing it. They make a comment or kill a certain guy, and I suddenly get inspriration for something. Major plots points happened last game, and I didn't devise them until we were actually talking about them.
They come from a high magic area. They know the reason that stuff happened to do what it did. Are there rules in the books for any of it? God no!. And I wouldn't want there to be. The more rules you have, the more that you feel that you need to follow them. The more ideas, the better. You want to give me a Monster Manual with interesting things and abilities, stats if you will. That's fine. But I don't need artificial rules to create a "feel". Those are mechanics. That's more crunch, less flavor.
It occurs to me that this is probably very disjointed. I've been doing parent-teacher conferences. The idea still holds, though. The feel can be done within the system as is. Anything else is just mechanics.