basic differences in rules per edition

[Neonchameleon]

If that's the point then it's a pretty useless point. How they fight when they can think of nothing better to do? What's the matter with just trying to injure their opponent? That's been the default since the very beginning. Your insistence on having a power to allow you to bash someone back with a shield isn't looking for a default action when they can't think of anything better to do, it's an attempt to achieve a specific effect that isn't simply injuring your opponent on the battlefield.

It's my attempt to have a default option to model a specific style of behaviour in a fight - large and in your face and driving you backwards. Not something that you always have time to think about, more a reflection of who you are.

And if that's something that should be there by default, why not disarm or any other effect I want to achieve?

As far as I know, no one reflexively disarms people. Knocking them prone on the other hand - monks have an at will to do this.

Ad hoc rulings were required for anything else. That hasn't changed. To assert that one game is somehow more limiting than the other in this regard is really more of a will to feel that one is more limiting.

But this isn't ad hoc behaviour. It's how I fight with sword and shield without thinking about it. That I need to be sixth level in Pathfinder to model my combat behaviour is ... a pity.

I think you have caught yourself out here. Firstly, you have your 4e defender shields upped to 75% power and secondly, as soon as you see MTG and 4e mentioned in the same sentence, you think that the comments are automatically bad.

You're probably right

Tide of Iron is a cool ability so I can understand where you are coming from. When starting adjacent, Bull Rush forces you to give up the attack (which you will get back with an attack of opportunity when they try to get up from prone -as will others who are adjacent). I suppose a Bull Rush like this would represent focusing your attention on shoving them back. However, you can charge them, still get the attack and the push effect knocking them over and the ensuing attack of opportunities which is not quite as you describe but in effect is similar (and perhsps a litlle better).

Bull rush doesn't knock people prone in 3.5 (I don't think charging helps this). And giving up the attack is really not what I'm looking for.

If I was your DM, and your fighter had multiple attacks,

I.e. 6th level?

In the Pathfinder Core Rules, you can choose the Shield Slam feat

IIRC that requires you to be 6th level.

Both these solutions require an olympic athlete level of physical prowess to mimic the way I fight personally with sword and board - and I'm neither 6th level nor any sort of fighter or warrior.

 

[CuRoi]

Originally Posted by CuRoi
Well, and here is an interesting thing often overlooked about older editions. Just because there weren't rules for some combat manuver did not mean it didn't happen.

Regarding my comment that just because prior editions did not have rules for every possible combat manuever doesn't mean they didn't happen-

Indeed. It happened despite the rules rather than supported by them. It was clunky, messy, and different at different tables. But it happened. This is not to the credit of the system.

Agreed - it is to the credit of the DM. Who, by virute of an more open system made a judgment call that added to everyone's enjoyment of the game. 3e tried to "clean things up" and in general did decent job at that. But, I'm not so sure having different rules to handle different things at different tables is really such a problem. That will happen in any edition. The second it doesn't, you have a board game IMO not an RPG where players and DMs are engaging the material to tell THEIR story.

This rules standardization with 3e unintentionally placed numerous restrictions on the DMs ability to make those same ad hoc judgment calls. 4e then came in and decided to flatten out the complexity curve of 3e while adding more attempts at standardization to the mix which, IMO, still never addresses a key issue.
There's a certain balance between standardization and freedom of judgment that needs to be achieved in a roleplaying game. I'm not saying 2e (or any particular edition) has found that key balance mind you. I'm just saying cleaner, more intutitive rules might very well be an answer, but that doesn't necesarily mean "more rules" nor does it mean simplifying rules to the point that the game possible slides closer to a board game feel IMO.

 

[CuRoi]

Bull rush doesn't knock people prone in 3.5 (I don't think charging helps this). And giving up the attack is really not what I'm looking for

So go for an Overrun

If I were your DM I'd have little problem allowing you to do that, 2e, 1e, Basic-e, etc. etc. Sounds like you want to knock someone back with an attack? I'd use the rules presented as a guideline and figure out a way your PC could pull it off. With 2e, roll your attack, since it's a non-standard attack I'd probably apply a -2 penalty to the roll. If you hit I'd go for something like strength checks to decide if the opponent is moved back; maybe use your damage as a base and have the opponent roll a d20 + strength as a sort of ad hoc saving throw.

With 3e or 3.5 it's a bit trickier cause they have feats and lots o' very specific rules. If I add a combat move which conflicts with an exist feat or combat move, I might unintentionally break something, make someone's feat useless etc. So just to keep the game rolling, I'd possibly go for a -4 on attack since it is non-standard attack and you will provoke an AoO trying to pull it off. If you hit, you deal damage. Then, maybe we'll do a standard opposed strength to see if opponent is pushed back 5 feet. Or...maybe I'll use the damage you caused as a Fort Save (using con, size and stability bonuses as modifiers) and if the target fails they stagger backward 5 feet (one square). I kinda like that now that I think of it...I can blow people back with spells, etc. This is all off the cuff mind you, so with 3.5e I would need to go back after the combat, examine it more closely and make sure I haven't broken something before allowing future use.

In 4e, well, there's Tide of Iron. If you don't have it, tough

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Rule 1: The game is not the rules.

Rule2: Come back when you have mastered rule 1.

Absolutely nonsensical.

 

[Arlough]

I think this exemplifies what has been happening here, again...


Back to the changes between editions...

My memory of those daze is a little fuzzy, and my books have been lost in moves and stolen by roommates long since. Nonetheless, I will endeavor to remember and highlight some differences.

2e/AD&D

• Stat requirements for race I just remembered that races didn't have stat requirements in 2nd. Wonder which game that was...
• Stat requirements for classes
• Fighters taking high Int for proficiency slots, but playing/being the stupid "kill" guy.
• Different level tables for every class.
• Lots more random
• More TPKs
• Point buy system added for attributes

3e

• Less random
• Stat requirements moved to Feats
• System Mastery Required
• Tons of prep required on the DM's side.
• Fights primarily static positions and then the roll-off

4e

• Predictable outcome of interactions
• Easy for beginners to adopt.
• Easy for experience players to then adjust without starting a new character.
• Mastery rewarded, but not game breaking. AKA, someone with system mastery would not cause a beginner to be pushed into the background.
• Everybody is involved in almost everything.
• Increased tactical combat.
• Long combat. (result of increased tactical combat, and presentation of combat options)
• Much shorter prep time for DM

Since I DM mostly now, I prefer the shorter prep time. I also prefer the predictablility of interactions, be they combat or skill challenges. It allows me to craft events that the players feel they have to overcome, without accidentally destroying them.

Another thing that I think has changed with the new stock of players and DMs is exemplified by "My party" vs. "The Old Ways"

I used to think of D&D as a conflict between the players and the DM. The rules were the sword and shield as we battled it out. Most of my early experiences with D&D, I was certain the DM was trying to toy with me before killing me. And thus I became a similar DM.

Now, though, I see the DM as an entertainer and party host. The job of the DM is to make sure everyone can have fun. The job of the player is to have fun. I think this type of thinking started in 3rd, but really came to fruition in 4th, due in large part to the 4th edition DMG.

Anyone else experience a similar shift?

 

[CuRoi]

I used to think of D&D as a conflict between the players and the DM. The rules were the sword and shield as we battled it out. Most of my early experiences with D&D, I was certain the DM was trying to toy with me before killing me. And thus I became a similar DM.

Now, though, I see the DM as an entertainer and party host. The job of the DM is to make sure everyone can have fun. The job of the player is to have fun. I think this type of thinking started in 3rd, but really came to fruition in 4th, due in large part to the 4th edition DMG.

Anyone else experience a similar shift?

Nope. I've never emphasized an "us versus the DM" style of play whether 2e or 3e. The whole concept is absurd, cause, well, the DM wins, period (the edition doesn't matter - the DM can absolutely destroy the party in any version of any RPG, which consequently usually makes for a sucky game.) I'm sorry you've had to put up with games like that!

Ive always run games where the players were the main characters in an evolving story. My job as DM has always been to present challenges and help the story unfold. Sure, sometimes as the rules played out, or the story played out, characters might fall to bad fortune. But it was never the case that I targetted players or arbitrarily decided to mess them up. I do "toy" with them at times, but only when it develops the overall story and usually it is in such a manner that hardens the players resolve to pursue in-game story resolutions.

Maybe your group's playstyle has just matured? Maybe you just had a rash of bad DMs? I don't think the editon or even the RPG chosen has much to do with it.

Edit: Consequently - my experience with 4e is that predictable outcomes, increased tactical combat (somehow they made an edition where the rules come even more to center stage for combat than 3e) are probably two examples of how the system clashes with my style, not adds to it. To each his own though. I do completely agree with the other benefits of 4e that you listed - they're just not enough to outweigh the things I personally dislike about the system.

 

[Arlough]

Nope.

...<snip>...

Maybe your group's playstyle has just matured? Maybe you just had a rash of bad DMs? I don't think the editon or even the RPG chosen has much to do with it.

Obviously others have had a similar experience. If it wasn't at least somewhat common, then the PA reference wouldn't be a successful parody.

 

[CuRoi]

Obviously others have had a similar experience. If it wasn't at least somewhat common, then the PA reference wouldn't be a successful parody.

Sure, everyone has seen or experienced something similar to the "Killer DM" experience. I thought you were seriously asking for input if anyone else had personally experienced a shift and from killer DMs in pre-4e editions to the latter. My experience was completely counter to the "killer DMs are confined to x edition" logic, so I thought it would be useful if you were genuinely intersted.

There's no single mechanic in a game that casues it - there's just a DM that chooses to run their games that way. For example - I've seen and heard plenty of "Encounters" sessions which 4e has rolled out that have run basically just as you describe; DMs toying with players then killing them off.

True, 1e games were necessarily more deadly, but as you point out, they were more random which if anything absolves a DM of guilt. He/she is just adjudicating a random system in neutral fashion. Sloppy, I agree, and not how I like to run games, but again I'm speaking from my experience.

IMO, IME, etc. etc.

 

[billd91]

I think this exemplifies what has been happening here, again...


Back to the changes between editions...

My memory of those daze is a little fuzzy, and my books have been lost in moves and stolen by roommates long since. Nonetheless, I will endeavor to remember and highlight some differences.

2e/AD&D

• Stat requirements for race I just remembered that races didn't have stat requirements in 2nd. Wonder which game that was...

First edition AD&D. The edition you are thinking of with minimum values for some stats for races was the first edition of AD&D.

 

[TarionzCousin]

Despite some tangential asides, this thread is full of interesting stuff. Thanks to almost everyone for reminding me about the differences. I had forgotten some of these.