1E and 4E are similar? Really? (Forked from: 1E Resurgence?)

[Umbran]

In 1E, unless spells were involved, you just could not take down opponents over 1 or 2 hit dice in one shot. If you faced a roomful of hill giants, it was going to take anywhere from 4 to 8 hits (more likely around 8) to bring one down.
...
In 3E, you have martial types able to do anywhere from 10 to 20 damage even at first level (for those big barbarians with the greataxes) to literally a hundred points of damage in a round, with their bonuses stacked high enough to ensure almost every attack was a hit.

Here's the thing I see...

In 1e, you didn't have all that many choices you could make to optimize a character. You had stats, a race, a class, maybe spell choices, and that's about it. In 3e, you have more opportunities for optimization - but you only see the effect you're talking about if the players take them. In the groups I worked with, folks rarely took much care about optimization, and didn't work much on the rules-mastery required to get those massive damage numbers.

So, my 3e fights didn't vary all that much from 1e fights, in that regard.

In regard to tactics in 1E, if one played by the rules in the DMG, actively tried to decipher them and put them to use, or looked at some of their precursors in Chainmail, there was a tactical element to them.

The difference being that in 1e, those rules were easily (and IME, generally) ignored, while in 4e they are more strongly written into the individual powers of the characters, such that you actually have to do extra work if you want to ignore them but still remain fair.

I would not be surprised if the way most folks felt 1e "naturally" played was without many of the tactical elements.

 

[Betote]

I've never played 1e, but I've played plenty of 2e and 4e seems to me much closer to its "spirit" than 3.x: cookie-cutter classes, oversimplified skills, PCs following different rules than the rest of the world...

And that's why I prefer 3.x to 4e. So yes, being "old-school" can be bad.

 

[JeffB]

So yes, being "old-school" can be bad.

Or really great All those things you pointed out as bad, are things I'm glad are back in the game :shrug:

 

[Betote]

Or really great All those things you pointed out as bad, are things I'm glad are back in the game :shrug:

And that's why we all should be glad there're different editions of the game and nobody forces us to play one or another

Seriously, although I'm not much of a 4e fan, I find very positive that it's out and that it's not "3.75". Different games (and I think BD&D, AD&D, 3.x and 4e are different enough to be called "different games" rather than "different editions") mean more variety from where to choose your favourite flavour. And not just the flavour for you, but the flavour for your current mood. Myself, I'm sometimes in the mood for a BD&D game, sometimes I want to continue my Rise of the Runelords campaign, and sometimes I want to run an über-HeroQuest game using 4e. And if there were just one edition, two of my 3 possible moods would end up in frustration.

So, 4e saves me money from psychiatrists

 

[Lanefan]

The MM gives advice on different monsters reflecting which ones tend to run away from a tough fight, or which ones will keep going to the death. This excerpt gives good examples:

"A hill giant is wise enough to flee if hopelessly outmatched."

OK, that right there is a big change from how I see 'em!

The average Hill Giant should have slightly more wisdom than my shoe, while about matching said shoe for intelligence. I can see Hill Giants either running for the horizon at the first hint of pain, or lashing out at whatever it is that's hurting them...a basic fight-or-flee impulse. They're not smart enough to figure out if the battle's winnable or not until after they've either won or lost.

Now higher-order Giants e.g. Frosties I can see as smart/wise enough to be able to weigh the odds going in and re-weigh them during the fight; and make halfway useful decisions based on such. But not Hills!

Lanefan

 

[JeffB]

And that's why we all should be glad there're different editions of the game and nobody forces us to play one or another

Agreed Plus, the EnWorld forums would likely wither away and die if the 4E Vs. 3E threads were no longer needed...what else would we talk about?

I didn't mean for my comment to sound confrontational- was just saying those were things I am glad are back in the game. Totally understand and respect your point/s as well.

 

[Betote]

It wasn't confrontational at all, don't worry

I was just trying to state that "old school" is neither a good nor a bad quality, just a feature that may appeal or not.

Although I think we should flame a little more... Agreeing in something is not well looked upon here

 

[Grimstaff]

It wasn't confrontational at all, don't worry

I was just trying to state that "old school" is neither a good nor a bad quality, just a feature that may appeal or not.

Although I think we should flame a little more... Agreeing in something is not well looked upon here

You are completely wrong, and I will soon post several links to prove it. Flame flame argue bicker flame.

Feel better?

 

[Betote]

You are completely wrong, and I will soon post several links to prove it. Flame flame argue bicker flame.

Feel better?

Much, appreciated, tha... I mean, What are you suggesting? Saying that I'm wrong, as if I were a school kid who failed to do his homework! Oh, I feel so insulted!

 

[Engilbrand]

Agreeing on an internet forum will eventually lead to dividing by 0. According to my Calculus professor in college, that's an invitation for Satan to come out of the ground.