Legens&Lore: Monte Cook takes over

[Bedrockgames]

See, I have to wonder at that last bit. Closer to 1e? Why? 3e was about as far from 1e as you could make it. They took pretty much every sacred cow mechanic in 1e and 2e and turned it into hamburger for 3e. They removed virtually all alignment restrictions, multiclassing restrictions, made making monster characters part of core, rejiggered virtually every spell, stripped down the base stats. Removed vast swaths of the rules to clean them up.

I said 1E, because 2E gets such little love. But between 1E, 2E, and 3E there is kind of a natural evolution that made sense to me. I wasn't shocked for example when I opened 3E (in fact I was somewhat delighted to see half-orcs, monks,etc returned to the PHB). The most obvious change I saw at first was they made calculating attacks much more intuitive (with BaB) and they made multiclassing much simpler and easier to achieve.

Sure it was very different, but the core elements were all there. It was very easy to go from playing 2E (which I was doing at the time) to 3E. I certainly had some complaints. Whereas my reaction to 4E when it came out was a bit more perplexed. It didn't feel familiar anymore.

Why would you think a Monte Cook designed 4e would go closer to 1e? 3e? Mabye, I'd buy that. But 1e? Good luck.

Simply because in my view 3E is much closer design-wise to 1E and 2E than 4E. I could be totally wrong. But my thinking is they hired him for a reason: 4E didn't meet the level of success they were looking for and they want to hedge off competition from pathfinder. Underlying most complaints I see about 4E is it simply went too far and sacrificed too many sacred cows. So I think their solution is going to be something that is a more natural outgrowth and progression from 3E (as 3E was to 2E). But I could be wrong. This is just my assumption about what is going on.

 

[Hussar]

I said 1E, because 2E gets such little love. But between 1E, 2E, and 3E there is kind of a natural evolution that made sense to me. I wasn't shocked for example when I opened 3E (in fact I was somewhat delighted to see half-orcs, monks,etc returned to the PHB). The most obvious change I saw at first was they made calculating attacks much more intuitive (with BaB) and they made multiclassing much simpler and easier to achieve.

Sure it was very different, but the core elements were all there. It was very easy to go from playing 2E (which I was doing at the time) to 3E. I certainly had some complaints. Whereas my reaction to 4E when it came out was a bit more perplexed. It didn't feel familiar anymore.



Simply because in my view 3E is much closer design-wise to 1E and 2E than 4E. I could be totally wrong. But my thinking is they hired him for a reason: 4E didn't meet the level of success they were looking for and they want to hedge off competition from pathfinder. Underlying most complaints I see about 4E is it simply went too far and sacrificed too many sacred cows. So I think their solution is going to be something that is a more natural outgrowth and progression from 3E (as 3E was to 2E). But I could be wrong. This is just my assumption about what is going on.

Funny thing is, I see 3e as fairly close mechanically to 4e.

Most of the sacred cows that were sacrificed from 3e to 4e were flavour ones. Tasty ones too. Mechanically, 4e is pretty solidly a d20 system.

Of course, this also depends when in the design cycle of 3e we're talking about. If you want to compare freshly released 3.0, then, sure, I'd buy that it was borrowing a lot from 2e, particularly late 2e, with a very large dash of Rolemaster. Which, given Monte Cook's history, should come as a surprise to no one.

But, if you move forward a few years, late (ish) 3e isn't all that far from 4e. Even before stuff like Bo9S, you had all sorts of mechanics that were moving the game further and further from core concepts like Vancian casting (with classes like the Warlock and feats that allowed you to continually cast all day long).

I guess it's all about perception. I opened the 4e PHB and saw things that were pretty familiar from all the way along.

 

[Deuce Traveler]

I'm still in wait and see mode, just as I've been for the last couple of years as the 5E rumors started taking off. If they modify 4E, than they must consider it enough of a success to still invest their time. If they go in a completely new direction, then I have to wonder if 4E has been the success that they claim. All in all, we won't have anything logical and informed to say on this issue until we have the benefit of hindsight.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

I like Monte Cook. But he was no fan of 4E. This seems like a strange decision based almost entirely on money for Monte rather than love of the game. Unless of course he's also there to help get D&D back to being D&D. That would be nice, though I'm pretty heavily committed to Pathfinder now.

But Monte was a major contributor to 3E, probably the most successful version of D&D to date. So this might bode well for future editions of D&D to see Monte back in the fold.

Remember that the announcement MAY mean EXACTLY what it says - he's there to consult with R&D about 4E, not to head the design of a new edition. Who better to consult with and tell you where you're making mistakes than somone who has NOT drunk the kool-aid?

 

[billd91]

See, I have to wonder at that last bit. Closer to 1e? Why? 3e was about as far from 1e as you could make it. They took pretty much every sacred cow mechanic in 1e and 2e and turned it into hamburger for 3e. They removed virtually all alignment restrictions, multiclassing restrictions, made making monster characters part of core, rejiggered virtually every spell, stripped down the base stats. Removed vast swaths of the rules to clean them up.

I disagree. I see a lot of the mechanical changes from 2e to 3e as taking principles from the older editions and generalizing or simplifying them. Some things changed a lot, sure. The skill system was a departure from 1e/2e (though germs of it can be seen in the 2.5 Player's Option edition). But the feat system wasn't that different from weapon proficiencies, particularly when you consider the addition of specialization in Unearthed Arcana, fighting styles in the Complete Fighter's Handbook, and special combat moves in the Celts historical campaign greenbook.

Looking at spells and magic items, coming up with different named bonuses was a way to generalize the ability to stack some bonuses (bless, prayer) but not others (rings of protection, cloaks of protection, magic armor bonuses).

So a lot of the new mechanics were designed to reinforce and extend principles in the old game and that's one reason I see 3e as being a lot more like 1e/2e than you apparently do.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Funny thing is, I see 3e as fairly close mechanically to 4e.

Most of the sacred cows that were sacrificed from 3e to 4e were flavour ones. Tasty ones too. Mechanically, 4e is pretty solidly a d20 system.

Of course, this also depends when in the design cycle of 3e we're talking about. If you want to compare freshly released 3.0, then, sure, I'd buy that it was borrowing a lot from 2e, particularly late 2e, with a very large dash of Rolemaster. Which, given Monte Cook's history, should come as a surprise to no one.

But, if you move forward a few years, late (ish) 3e isn't all that far from 4e. Even before stuff like Bo9S, you had all sorts of mechanics that were moving the game further and further from core concepts like Vancian casting (with classes like the Warlock and feats that allowed you to continually cast all day long).

I guess it's all about perception. I opened the 4e PHB and saw things that were pretty familiar from all the way along.

I am not really talking about the later 3E and d20 stuff, like Star Wars Saga and the like. I am thinking the core books for 3E. To me that is pretty obviously rooted in previous editions. With a spell system, a class system, etc that all very much feel like the previous editions with some key improvments. 4E just feels like a totally different game to me.

 

[Scotley]

Maybe the game can take divergent paths? 4e Essentials has gone very basic D&D in that it is a more simplified game with fewer options in a red box. Maybe Monte can help write a new AD&D?

 

[Bedrockgames]

Maybe the game can take divergent paths? 4e Essentials has gone very basic D&D in that it is a more simplified game with fewer options in a red box. Maybe Monte can help write a new AD&D?

I don't know what business plan is best for WOTC. But I would expect to see something where you all buy the same book but it is scaleable (like Mearls was suggesting) if they went that direction. However my personal feeling is 4E is its own kind game (one a lot of people seem to like passionately). So I don't think it is a matter of more simple, less simple, more options, less options...I think they need to pick a direction and stick with it, hoping the direction they chose appeals to the most amount of players possible.

 

[Hussar]

I disagree. I see a lot of the mechanical changes from 2e to 3e as taking principles from the older editions and generalizing or simplifying them. Some things changed a lot, sure. The skill system was a departure from 1e/2e (though germs of it can be seen in the 2.5 Player's Option edition). But the feat system wasn't that different from weapon proficiencies, particularly when you consider the addition of specialization in Unearthed Arcana, fighting styles in the Complete Fighter's Handbook, and special combat moves in the Celts historical campaign greenbook.

Looking at spells and magic items, coming up with different named bonuses was a way to generalize the ability to stack some bonuses (bless, prayer) but not others (rings of protection, cloaks of protection, magic armor bonuses).

So a lot of the new mechanics were designed to reinforce and extend principles in the old game and that's one reason I see 3e as being a lot more like 1e/2e than you apparently do.

But, the exact same thing can be said of 4e. Most of the changes in 4e are very much present in some form in 3e. Feats? Well, those are already there. Math? Yup. Casting all day long? Yup. Special powers for martial characters? Yup.

Is the game different? Oh sure. No question there. But, most of 4e is immedietely recognizable from it's 3e origins. I'd say the largest changes in 4e have been to flavour, not to mechanics. In 3e, the reverse was true. The largest changes were mechanical, not in flavour.

 

[Hussar]

I am not really talking about the later 3E and d20 stuff, like Star Wars Saga and the like. I am thinking the core books for 3E. To me that is pretty obviously rooted in previous editions. With a spell system, a class system, etc that all very much feel like the previous editions with some key improvments. 4E just feels like a totally different game to me.

See, this is the problem with this conversation. Everyone seems to want to pick and choose which apples to compare.

If you compare core to core, 1e to 3e, there are almost no similarities. Every class, every mechanic, every monster has been changed. Everyone works very differently. If we go by what Bill91 is saying and start comparing late 1e and late 2e to 3e, then why can't we compare late 3e/3.5 to 4e?

And, things like warlocks, forex, are hardly late in the development cycle. Complete Arcane came out in what, 2004? it was one of the very early 3.5 splats. So, it's not like the idea of punting Vancian casting wasn't present pretty early on.

To me, it's a pretty easy line to follow - the later era edition shapes a great deal of the next edition. Most of the changes are pretty clearly visible in the earlier edition and then incorporated in the later one.