(Rambling) Why 4e doesn't "feel" 1e...

[Delta]

Well then to truly get a 1E feel you need to convert most things to matrices. Attack matrices, ability score matrices, etc. Because that is what those 12 times represents. A number matrix.

You are just being argumentative.

 

[justanobody]

No. 1E had more tables (of matrices) than the world's largest flea market.

 

[RFisher]

What was not reliable was the continued existence of the one who cast the magic. Poor AC, low hit points, and not particularly good saves made the wizard themselves fragile.

Yet, I remember a lot more 1e fighter deaths than MU. (And the MU death that sticks out in my mind was far from combat and entirely my own stupidity.) Of course, I play more fighters, which could account for some of it. (^_^) Yet, I think it also has to do with the fact that I was normally doing everything I could to ensure that I was taking the hits instead of the casters.

The thing that is odd to me: I read that 4e brings the team idea back to the fore, but from the few sessions I’ve played so far, the casters charged past the fighters because they didn’t need their protection.

(And—just to be clear—no, I’m not trying to call badwrongfun on anyone.)

1. The adventuring day is so short that magic-users are not effectively limited by their number of spells per day.

I always see fighters who are happy to let their casters recharge. They’re more worried about the casters being effective for the party than worrying that the casters might overshadow them.

Likewise, I see MUs who work hard to contribute more to the party than their spells or attacks.

I used to have my share of complaints with the older editions, but it was never that fighters and MUs needed to be balanced. I just have a hard time seeing the problem.

I never see any former 1e high-level fighter players wishing the game was more 1e style (or any low-level fighter or magic-user players for that matter).

(^_^) Should I even bother adding my hand to those already raised? How many times have I typed “fighter is my favorite class” around here?

 

[MerricB]

Yet, I remember a lot more 1e fighter deaths than MU. (And the MU death that sticks out in my mind was far from combat and entirely my own stupidity.) Of course, I play more fighters, which could account for some of it. (^_^) Yet, I think it also has to do with the fact that I was normally doing everything I could to ensure that I was taking the hits instead of the casters.

That's how 4e plays for me. The fighters go down because the MUs stay as far away from combat as possible. When the MUs do enter combat, they're in trouble (1e and 4e).

Cheers!

 

[Treebore]

No. Only spells that where used.

I know, the rest of the post is about my pulling out the 1E DMG and looking at the rules and figuring out what was meant by the poster I quoted. The poster has since confirmed I figured out what they meant correctly.


I think the "randomness" the OP is talking about has to do not with actually casting the spells, but with targets making saves, chances of even getting usable magic items if the charts are used as is, etc...

I do know that one thing that really irritated me in D&D was that at high levels everyone started to save versus spells 80 to 90% of the time, forcing mages to become fireball throwers, because otherwise they wouldn't have any effect at all with those hold spells, harm, etc... since they were all or nothing and 80% of the time it would be nothing.

Throw in all the resistances and immunities 3E made available and mages became pretty ineffective at higher levels.

4E has so far shown me that the mages, at low levels anyway, will fail more often than they succeed. Further eroding their effectiveness.

 

[Remathilis]

I used to have my share of complaints with the older editions, but it was never that fighters and MUs needed to be balanced. I just have a hard time seeing the problem.

My problem was the the imbalance went the life of the campaign, and there was a relatively small window (sweet spot) where all classes were equal.

At low levels (1st-4th), fighters and clerics dominated due to high hp and armor training.

At middle levels (5-8th) most the classes even out. Thieves have a a good chance of succeeding in their skills and have some hp. Clerics get 3rd level magic (many of the major status ailments) Fighters are getting their second attack, and wizards are getting fireball, fly, and dispel magic.

At name level (9-12th) mages and clerics become ascendant. Save or dies and big-boom magic begin to marginalize fighters in combat (beyond "distracting them for a few round") and thieves begin to max out their thief skills (and lose their edge in combat)

At high level (13th-18th) mages rule, clerics enjoy runner-up status, rogues are obsolete in combat and nearly so out of combat (due to magic items and potent rogue-replacing spells) and fighters mostly have taken the rule of pinata while the wizard and/or priest ends the fight.

Epic levels (19th+) Just continues the trend, depending on what epic rules you're using.

Now, each edition tweaked those assumptions a bit, but the general idea remains true, until 4e's power/balance system, magic typically won the arms race and martial characters fell behind in usefulness.

The thing is, 4e's method of balancing everything was to make everything the same. While that's simple and elegant, it also feels forced considering D&D's history. and to some wholely unsatisfying.

One wonders if there is a "Holy Grail" which allows wizards to be powerful and fighters relevant across all levels.

 

[Angrydad]

I know, the rest of the post is about my pulling out the 1E DMG and looking at the rules and figuring out what was meant by the poster I quoted. The poster has since confirmed I figured out what they meant correctly.


I think the "randomness" the OP is talking about has to do not with actually casting the spells, but with targets making saves, chances of even getting usable magic items if the charts are used as is, etc...

I do know that one thing that really irritated me in D&D was that at high levels everyone started to save versus spells 80 to 90% of the time, forcing mages to become fireball throwers, because otherwise they wouldn't have any effect at all with those hold spells, harm, etc... since they were all or nothing and 80% of the time it would be nothing.

Throw in all the resistances and immunities 3E made available and mages became pretty ineffective at higher levels.

4E has so far shown me that the mages, at low levels anyway, will fail more often than they succeed. Further eroding their effectiveness.

I know what you mean about spellcasters in 3.xe games. Why everyone thinks they are so "broken" at higher levels is beyond me. Most CR appropriate monsters have enough resistences to energy types and SR that there's a decent chance the wizard or cleric isn't going to effect them with many spells. Or they have so many HP that a wizard blasting away isn't going to kill them in one round. I know SR has screwed over many a spell in my epic level campaign.

 

[justanobody]

My problem was the the imbalance went the life of the campaign, and there was a relatively small window (sweet spot) where all classes were equal.

At low levels (1st-4th), fighters and clerics dominated due to high hp and armor training.

This is where I think that problem lies. It is not a complete competition between the players. They may have advanced differently, and each had their own personal goals, but it was not a contest to see who did the most. Each class had its strengths and weaknesses. The reason to play one of the other was not do do the most at a certain point of the game, but because you wanted to be that type of person in the game.

If by dominate you mean the other common use, that many people preferred to play them, then that too was not a game but a player problem coming from the previous paragraph. If you try to compete with the other players, then you will be more focus on looking for those places where one class "wins" and the other "loses".

I would hope people are more interested in focusing on having fun rather than competing for DM attention or a whose "sword" is bigger contest.

I often see people make this complaint because they do look for those things rather than play the game. When I tell them to ignore that and play for fun, they find that they enjoyed their character more throughout all levels. Some just would not ignore the competition.

Another reason that each class got XP for different things in editions of old was so that what a class did was judged on what it was meant to do.

It didn't always revolve around who killed the most got the most XP.

Competition amongst players in any form other than who gets to loot the very next corpse, always leads to problems in the game.

D&D should be cooperative, not competitive.

 

[Remathilis]

I think the "randomness" the OP is talking about has to do not with actually casting the spells, but with targets making saves, chances of even getting usable magic items if the charts are used as is, etc...

EXACTLY!

I never played 2e (my starting edition) with all the random rolls as is. I used 4d6 arrange-to-taste, max hp at 1st level, etc. However, much of 1e/2e allowed for random rolls (treasure, monsters, even the old dungeon generator!) all of which made the game seem less "scripted" and more spontaneous than 3e and esp 4e.

Randomness that typically hurt PCs.

As to spell-power, many spells essentially came down to "save or lose the fight" I incorrectly labeled sleep one, but Charm Person, Hold Person, Finger of Death, Slay Living, Banishment, Tasha's Laughter, Maze, Otto's Dance, etc many of which changed the combat in one save. If they worked, they radically changed the combat (often ending it) or they failed (as levels grew, odds of successful save increased dramatically) and the spell was wasted.

As Treebore said, it was often safer to cast magic missile, fireball, or some guaranteed damage than face an all or nothing save. Powerful, but unreliable.

A fighter attacks. If he misses, his attack was not "wasted" He can do it again. He could do it all day if his hp held out. However the damage he did over time rarely ever matched or exceeded the damage a single wizard could do with a successful spell. Reliable, but not powerful.

 

[Remathilis]

This is where I think that problem lies. It is not a complete competition between the players.

I meant it the meaning of "who is contributing positivity in a given situation (ignoring such intangibles as role-playing, clever ideas, or other play-related elements not affected by character).

A fighter dominates because he is good at combat (which low-level games have a lot of). Clerics had good combat ability and healing. Wizards typically had 1-2 spells and then become sub-par fighters, and rogue/thieves occasionally get a good attack in, as well as using their stealth and trapfinding skills.

As the levels go higher, the fighter remains constant (good at combat) but the cleric soon gains access to powerful offensive spells (and potent buffs that make him as good if not better than a fighter in the fighter's role). Wizards start pulling their weight in offensive magic, then spring ahead in sheer power (as well as utility) and thieves begin to see they are lagging in combat AND they're skills are being marginalized by the wizards and priests utility magic (fly, invisibility, find traps, etc).

At the end, the wizard ends up commanding the lion share of attention due to his spells essentially being game-changers (when they work, of course) and clerics able to do the same AND fill the fighters role. The fighter has become marginalized since his combat dominance (being the best at, well, fighting) no longer matters in a world of save-or-dies and mass damage effects, and the rogue has seen his role evaporate in light of magic being more powerful and easier to use than a rogue's skills.

Its niche protection. In the beginning, classes are separate-but-equal. By the end the casters have trampled the non-caster roles.

That's one "1eism" I don't miss...