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

[Simon Atavax]

Thats kind of a problem that any 3pp will have with old school feel products for 4E. Encounters now have to "built" via a formula to ensure balance. Encounter tables that make sense for the area are kind of out of fashion. Old school design placed monsters where they were most likely to be found ( with some notable silly exceptions) and without regard to the power level of any adventureres that might be passing through.

This is one thing about old school play that I *always* maintained in 3.x as a DM. The players should never assume they are capable of defeating the monsters they encounter just because they encounter them! It's metagaming at its worst. Now granted, I didn't send an ancient Red Dragon or the Tarrasque against 2nd level PCs, but I also made sure the players knew that they were entering a (relatively) realistic world that was not simply "tailor-made" for their level.

 

[crash_beedo]

In published adventures, I don't think that's true.

I think you might be confusing "old school" vs "new schoo" with status quo vs tailored deisgn.

A status quo design puts things where the DM feels they ought to be in the world, and if the group finds them, they find them - if they are sitll first level and go to the ancient red dragon's lair, that's their tough luck.

A tailored design fits the adventures to the party - the 1st level characters never run into any form of dragon, because there's no way they could handle the challenge.

Folks used both varieties of design back in the old days, so I don't think it is an old vs new difference.

Sure - published adventures (which clearly were marked to encompass a limited range of levels) typically kept the encounters within the level range.

But the encounter tables presented in the DMG were based on terrain and rarity, not monster level, and the lair guidelines for monsters in the 1E MM had no concept of encounter levels... a kobold lair could be like 400 kobolds!

A DM could certainly run his 4E game in this style; I'm just pointing out that ecology / terrain / wilderness encounter tables / etc are missing from the 4E core (and the 4E core philosophy) and it represents some design space where a 3PP could reintroduce the older approach.

 

[jensun]

I'm just pointing out that ecology / terrain / wilderness encounter tables

I have to ask, did anyone actually use these?

I was quite obvious to us, even as teenagers, that if you did it was complete suicide for a party, even one which approached the game like some sort of special forces group trapped behind enemy lines.

 

[AllisterH]

I would DEARLY enjoy hearing how the level 2 party went through 20 orcs. The problem with anecdotal evidence is that, sometimes, it never happened in the first place.

Not exactly that hard by the book....

While you couldnt start with plate armour, it was certainly possible by 2nd level especially if one used published modules. See for example, this thread and notice the amount of treasure the PCs have by the end of that level...

Full plate cost 4-10K gp which was way out of the price range of the 1st level adventurer. Depending on the module you used, it might not be until 3rd level that you had enough gold for that...

However, Field plate was only 2k and that CERTAINLY was buyable by 2nd level in your typical adventure....

Field plate + shield gave an AC of 1 while an orc only had a THACO of 19. Being able to hit only on a 18+ means that yeah, a 2nd level fighter could kill orcs pretty much whole day and not worry. Keep in mind as well, that the PHB itself even mentions that field plate + shield is an acceptable amount of gear for a 1st level fighter (check what the elite units a fighter got when he reached "name" level)

You could certainly change the base assumptions of 1e/2e (and as evidenced many times on this board, that's what everyone did) but by RAW, a 2nd level fighter certainly could stomp 20 orcs into the ground and be scratched only once...

This I think is why some posters don't believe the "1e was really brutal in combat" memory. If you actually play by the rules, any class that could wear armour certainly could tank most monsters way before 9th level.

Full plate + shield equalled AC of 0 and this is all mundane gear. Even a Hill giant needed to roll a 9 to hit that. Throw in a ring of protection here, some magic armour and shield there and by the time the PCs actually got to run "Against the Giants", the armour wearing PCs would only be hit on a 15 of 16

re: Classes feel the same...

Personally, I think this is not true at all. I think the WOTC designers realized that designing separate classes for everything is not needed.

Ex: The beguiler, dread necromancer and the warmage are reskins of each other.

Does anyone think they play the same?

Similarly, a warblade, crusader and a swordsage are variations on the same mechanics, yet many people think they play much more differently than say a paladin, fighter and a ranger play....

 

[AllisterH]

I have to ask, did anyone actually use these?

I was quite obvious to us, even as teenagers, that if you did it was complete suicide for a party, even one which approached the game like some sort of special forces group trapped behind enemy lines.

*LOL*

you haven't been here long have you?

Of course somebody did (and I'll admit that I was subject to this once or twice when I was playing 1e. I personally ditched it right away when I became DM for the self same reason you gave)

 

[Kwalish Kid]

Since this appears to be a poll, I'll answer. Normally I'd stay out of a 1e type thread.

I don't know what 1e feel is. I played Rules Cyclopedia D&D, but I still don't know what "1e Feel" is.

Indeed. Maybe I'll assign that as a paper topic:

In 1200 to 1600 words, explain how a RPG campaign (using one specific, though perhaps modified, game system) might capture "1st Edition Feel". Be sure to use one of the explanatory frameworks discussed in the course. You must reference at least three game texts and at least three sources from sociology, literary theory, or ludology.

 

[crash_beedo]

I have to ask, did anyone actually use these?

I was quite obvious to us, even as teenagers, that if you did it was complete suicide for a party, even one which approached the game like some sort of special forces group trapped behind enemy lines.

YES. ABSOLUTELY. It's part of why you see in the 'grognard' style threads the idea 'challenge the players, not just the characters'. If the wood the party is passing by is the lair of a dragon or some creature, the players should have the sense (once they read the signs the DM provides) to skirt the woods, hide, sneak, whatever. They should have the sense to realize that nearby lair is unwinnable for them.

The other side of it is that the DM needs to be fair enough to provide the players enough information to make decisions and evaluate the threat. Dumping a high level fight right on the players with no chance to avoid it whatsoever is fairly churlish, right?

A good example of this in 4E is the Level 6 Irontooth fight... although the fight is eminently beatable, it's quite possible for a party to get in over their heads and resort to old school tactics like 'Flee, flee for your lives!' - and it's certainly amenable to groups trying to outthink the situation - draw the kobolds out, for instance, and fight them in the water where shifting is prohibited.

Otherwise, 4E could suffer from - when I go into the woods at level 1, everything we fight is level 1-4 encounters - we can beat anything. When I go into the woods at level 5, everything is a level 5-9 encounter - we can beat it. (etc etc). It's like asking why are the town guards suddenly level 15 minions now that we're in paragon tier?

It might make sense from 4E's design philosophy, but dagnabbit whippersnappers it was different back in the 70's, I say! We had 8-tracks and disco and wilderness encounter tables!

 

[AllisterH]

The other side of it is that the DM needs to be fair enough to provide the players enough information to make decisions and evaluate the threat. Dumping a high level fight right on the players with no chance to avoid it whatsoever is fairly churlish, right?

!

Of course, this was the big thing...

What I suspect would happen in most cases was the DM would say, "ok, time for a random encounter", rolls dice, "ok, it's a hill giant". PCs respond, "But we're only 1st level and nobody warned us!".

 

[fuindordm]

I think 4E already has a lot of AD&D feel in it.

The only major thing that irks me is the enormous emphasis on pushes, pulls, slides and shifts in the combat rules and powers. I loved this month's Dragon article on artifacts, but the blessing/curse granted by the chess game was a huge letdown.

The other stuff--wacky, sometimes overpowered and/or cursed magic items, encounter design, and so on is pretty easy to add back in. I would have liked to see more diversity among the class powers too, but the benefits of unified mechanics and progression are pretty strong.

Ben

 

[The_Gneech]

All those shifts, pushes, pulls, etc. are a quickfix way of giving monsters powers that do something without adding math to the game. 3E had ability damage, which was a neat idea but caused a nightmare of refiguring at the table. 4E is aiming for "fire and forget" type powers which can be resolved quickly.

I think Saga Edition condition track is a neat little mechanic that gives many of the benefits of ability damage without so much stopping to rewrite your stat block in the middle of the fight. That, combined with some 4E-style shifting, knocking prone, and whatnot, seems to provide the best of both worlds.

-The Gneech