4e "getting back to D&D's roots" how?

[Filcher]

If I wanted to get back to the roots of D&D with 4E, here's what I would do:

• Roll 3D6 in order for stats.
• Races are human, elf, dwarf and halfling.
• To qualify for a class, you must have a 14 in one of its key abilities and 12 in the others. Paladins must have a minimum 17 charisma.
• Start with Hit Points equal to what you normally get at level up + Con modifier, so a Fighter starts with 6+con mod HP, a wizard gets 4+con and so on.
• Martial classes get no powers at all, and may choose one of their class abilities.
• All Spells for arcane and divine characters are daily.
• Channel Divinity for clerics is usable twice per day.
• Death happens at 0 HP. The only time you can use a healing surge is when you are affected by a healing power.
• Natural healing is 1 HP per day.

This is a SWEET list. We should also add: 1 GP = 1 XP.

C'mon. Let's roll up some PCs. I want to give it whirl.

 

[Baumi]

Just wanted to add one little thing that might brought the feel back: Combats are now against groups again, like they were in earlier adventures unlike 3E where it was based arount one Opponent.

 

[ExploderWizard]

That's because that's not tactics. Tactics is figuring out when to use an ability to have, as well as where to use it. Positioning and movement is far more key in 4e, and movement is a huge part of combat tactics.

Some powers can have tactical applications but a some are pure gamist mastery. I think of powers as weapons rather than tactics.

Which is different from "Hey Bob, don't move on your turn. I'm going to lay a cure light wounds on you." how?

I don't recall saying that anything resembling the above as being a use of tactics.

 

[Obryn]

Well, since everyone is saying how things "remind" them of OD&D or 1E, I can accept that. I don't see it myself, but I can accept that you others do. Those who might say the rules are like they were, then I would have to completely not understand.

No, where the rules are involved, 4e is without a doubt a modern, syncretic RPG that incorporates earlier editions of D&D, mechanics from other RPGs, and bits & pieces of other kinds of games entirely. It's definitely a product of modern, late 00's, game design.

So I hope that people aren't talking about the specific rules when they say 4e is reminiscent of earlier editions. I know I'm not. I'm talking about the general feel of the game, the difference in the DM's role, the power-shift back to the DM, and so on.

-O

 

[Angrydad]

In response to "kewl powers:" Smite evil was a kewl power. Rage was a kewl power. Inspire courage was a kewl power. Power attack was an at-will kewl power (it's even got "power" in the name). EVERYONE got kewl powers in 3.x. To argue otherwise either revisionist history or semantics.

Ah! Someone has managed to articulate some of the things I've been thinking (finally)! Anyone who says powers are new to 4e is fooling themselves. However, I feel that the powers presented in 4e are somehow not the same as in 4e. In 3.x, class abilities like Rage or feats like Power Attack seemed tied to a class in a logical, if fantastical, sort of way. The powers in 4e seem somehow disconnected and unrelated to any sort of system for a given class. Fighter powers that let them move enemies around the battlefield that aren't described as a Bull Rush or unarmed kick type attack just don't make sense.

 

[The Little Raven]

Fighter powers that let them move enemies around the battlefield that aren't described as a Bull Rush or unarmed kick type attack just don't make sense.

It makes more sense for a kick to move you than for a sword's sharp edge? I dunno about you, but I'm pretty responsive to moving away from something sharp that is cutting into my flesh.

 

[Angrydad]

It makes more sense for a kick to move you than for a sword's sharp edge? I dunno about you, but I'm pretty responsive to moving away from something sharp that is cutting into my flesh.

Well, this is where my idea of HP and yours may differ. If you prefer to think of HP as some representation of the amount of physical punishment a character can absorb, then go for it. I tend to think of HP more as a character's ability to dodge, weave, and generally turn what would otherwise be a killing blow into a mere graze. If you're not really getting cut by the sword that "hit" you (meaning you still have positive HP) then you're not going to get pushed around by it. Bull Rush is quite literally physically pushing another person around with your body. The powers in 4e that cause you to shift an enemy just by waving your weapon at them don't really jive with my imagining of HP.

 

[RFisher]

Trying to say 4E is somehow closer to OD&D than 3E is simply a desperate bid for legitimacy, and IMO completely obviously false.

One of the guys in my group—the one that ran our 4e sessions—said he felt 4e was closer to BECM. He’s not really an edition-warrior, but if he were forced to take such a side, I think he’d sign up with the 3e army. (After the 4e sessions, he said he is definitely not moving his primary campaign world to 4e.) So, I don’t really think he said it out of trying to legitimize 4e.

So, even though I don’t get it, I think there might be something to it.

The tactics myth

I’ve been struggling to put that into words for years, and I think you did it better than I have yet.

 

[Gimby]

Well, this is where my idea of HP and yours may differ. If you prefer to think of HP as some representation of the amount of physical punishment a character can absorb, then go for it. I tend to think of HP more as a character's ability to dodge, weave, and generally turn what would otherwise be a killing blow into a mere graze. If you're not really getting cut by the sword that "hit" you (meaning you still have positive HP) then you're not going to get pushed around by it. Bull Rush is quite literally physically pushing another person around with your body. The powers in 4e that cause you to shift an enemy just by waving your weapon at them don't really jive with my imagining of HP.

Consider it not a physical shove, but pressuring the target in such a way as they are forced to give ground? That seems consistent with your interpretation of HP - its not the bite of the blade thats made them move, but the *threat* of that bite.

 

[justanobody]

Comparing the older books to 4th it seems the focus on combat rules may be where this lies. Not giving rules for other things doesn't deny their existance, but just tries to focus on the most common problematic areas for most people. Also D&D coming from Chainmail was in part a miniature game with roleplaying added.

That is the only connection I can really find to adapt to this concept.