New Legends and Lore:Head of the Class

[Gizmoduck5000]

This would sound like a very good idea, if it weren't for the part were advanced options would be included.

All I want out of D&D is another Rulescyclopedia; a complete game all in one book with modern design. Then I could tell the sniveling, spoiled, mouth-breathing aspie basement cases with their special snowflake builds to go piss off to Pathfinder or whatever.

Seriously, I'm sick of the stupid "character build" culture in D&D. The game doesn't need infinite axes of customization...all that manages to do is turn the game into a bloated, unwieldy and unmanageable mess, only to reward the same relatively few s who are complaining on your messageboard on a daily basis (WotC), who would most likely buy all of the books anyway, even if each was full of 100 potato recipes and 1 feat. It would be nice to have a modern edition of D&D that didn't treat character generation like building a magic deck.

I know that's what a lot of gamers want. But I hate gamers. Most people hate gamers. Besides, the vast majority of games out there are already complex...I say boot your current fanbase out (they're really not doing you any favors by sticking around) and let them wander off to runequest or whatever. Stop making games for gamers...instead make them for your ACTUAL target audience...the people who COULD be gamers.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Happens all the time in BECMI... vs., I'm guessing, pretty much never in 4e.

Why? What are you basing this guess off of?

Furthermore, what is it about the two games that make it more likely in one than the other? There's no rules one way or the other in either edition.

Come to think of it, I distinctly remember NOT doing this exact thing in a 1e campaign because it would mean we wouldn't fight the foe, kill it and get XP and loot.

 

[Gizmoduck5000]

Why? What are you basing this guess off of?

Furthermore, what is it about the two games that make it more likely in one than the other? There's no rules one way or the other in either edition.

Come to think of it, I distinctly remember NOT doing this exact thing in a 1e campaign because it would mean we wouldn't fight the foe, kill it and get XP and loot.

You wouldn't do it in 4E because you don't have any kind of rules for those things, and the guidelines for ruling out-of-the-box are pretty shallow. Essentially, everything in game is there to support the (blech) "awesome" combat engine...so the only reason to do anything is the next fight...something like that would simply never occur to a 4E player, because the game is all about stitching together killer combos like marvel vs. capcom (running at full resolution on a commodore 64's processor I might add) and every other option in the game is inferior to simply using their daily, action point, using their other daily.

I'm not saying that 4E players are inherently dumb, mind you. But when the only tool you give someone is a hammer, eventually every problem looks like a nail.

In fact...next time I get stuck running 4E, I'm going to set up an encounter with a wandering bear that has 3000 hp and only does 1 point of damage per attack.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Hm. Mearls, hinting that 5e might optionally support the old BECMI race-classes. Or even use them as the default, with AD&D "pick your race" as the advanced option. Me likey!

However, I do agree with what many people on this thread have said: character creation/advancement is only one slice of the complexity pie. Many other topics remain to be addressed. Bring back abstract, no-minis-necessary combat. Bring back rules for exploring the dungeon: the ten-minute "turn" was an elegant unit of out-of-combat game-time, in spite of its confusing name, which structured exploration and focused play on managing time vs. resources, avoiding wandering monsters, etc. And, of course, the most meaningful choice a player can make should not be the selection of a feat or a power, but something actually done in game... for example, dropping food or treasure to distract a monster and thereby avoid a combat. Happens all the time in BECMI... vs., I'm guessing, pretty much never in 4e.

What dungeon exploration rules do you need? Examples please.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Why? What are you basing this guess off of?

Furthermore, what is it about the two games that make it more likely in one than the other? There's no rules one way or the other in either edition.

Come to think of it, I distinctly remember NOT doing this exact thing in a 1e campaign because it would mean we wouldn't fight the foe, kill it and get XP and loot.

At a glance not assuming heavy houseruling I would agree with that assessment because of two little words:

THE ENCOUNTER

XP in 4E is gained through overcoming challenges which are made up of individual encounters. If the encounter is set up as a combat challenge then the foes must be overcome to earn the xp. Treasure is a reward for jumping through the hoops of the challenges.

Throwing down food to distract them to what end? No combat = no xp for the encounter.

In classic/AD&D the primary xp source is treasure and the acquisition thereof by any means possible. Monster xp was just the gravy on top. Looking for fights rather than loot could be the fast track to a short career. Wandering monsters usually had little treasure and so were often not worth using the resources required to fight them. Thus dropping food/low end treasure to distract pursuers could often be a sound investment.

If one were to award xp for treasure gained in 4E and scale down the xp for combat then it certainly could work there as well.

 

[ExploderWizard]

What dungeon exploration rules do you need? Examples please.

Exploration rules are only as meaningful as time management is in the game.

Are there wandering monsters? Does the party have enough food, ammunition, oil, spikes, etc.?

If these concerns are skipped or glossed over then exploration just becomes flavor text between encounters.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Exploration rules are only as meaningful as time management is in the game.

Are there wandering monsters? Does the party have enough food, ammunition, oil, spikes, etc.?

If these concerns are skipped or glossed over then exploration just becomes flavor text between encounters.

Personally I find food, ammo rules a pain in the ass and I generally throw in wandering monsters when I fell they might be appropiate.
On the basis of Chandler's Law.

I don't see the need for rules for this.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Personally I find food, ammo rules a pain in the ass and I generally throw in wandering monsters when I fell they might be appropiate.
On the basis of Chandler's Law.

I don't see the need for rules for this.

If you are busy constructing stories then the stuff of exploration is of limited importance and only relevant until the next important scene.

If you are playing with the aim of exploring a fantasy world then such rules have more use and the novel writing tropes are the rules of limited utility.

 

[Dedekind]

I like characters where I don't have to make a decision between a cool choice and a good choice. I want all the choices to be both cool and good. That is why I value balance.

The whole debate between basic and advanced comes down to the issue of balance. Can the basic character play in the same game as the advanced character? Mike says yes and I support that philosophy.

What Mike hasn't said yet is that character creation (either basic or advanced) needs to not matter at the table. You get [MENTION=1288]Mouseferatu[/MENTION] 's "best of all editions" when the mechanics work so well, you stop paying attention to them.

IMO...

 

[Anselyn]

Exploration rules are only as meaningful as time management is in the game.

Are there wandering monsters? Does the party have enough food, ammunition, oil, spikes, etc.?

If these concerns are skipped or glossed over then exploration just becomes flavor text between encounters.

In Playing with the Core, Mearls said

To me, exploration is all about uncovering secrets and thinking in terms of the big picture. It’s the excitement of setting sail on the Nyr Dyv in search of the Isle of Woe. It’s the uncertainty of checking for traps, or trying to figure out which door to open first. Exploration is a strong part of D&D because it plays into the idea that the players can do whatever they want on a large scale. You can strike off into the forest west of town just to see what’s there, or take a long route around an undead-occupied keep to attack it from an unexpected direction. It gives players a real sense of control over their characters and the story—one that few other games can continue to feed for as long as a D&D campaign

This suggests and importance more than just time or resource managment but also suggests, in line with your previous point, that the world and the choice of door taken is more than just a functional link between combat nodes of XP harvesting.