The D&D 4th edition Rennaissaince: A look into the history of the edition, its flaws and its merits

[EzekielRaiden]

Because of the mad-hit point proliferation my little experience with 4e saw me create a homebrew rule the capping of HD dependent on size, which is a variation of the E6 rule but only for HD/hp.
So,
Small = max 4HD
Medium = max 6 HD
Large = max 10 HD
Huge = max 18 HD
Etc...

But one could use their own justification for HD caps per size.
It worked for our table I believe, at least for the little while we played the edition.

4e...doesn't have HD. I'm not entirely sure how you could even determine "HD", frankly.

 

[AnotherGuy]

4e...doesn't have HD. I'm not entirely sure how you could even determine "HD", frankly.

Surges, happy?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Surges, happy?

But...creatures don't have surges. Only PCs have surges. By doing that, all you've done is punish the PCs for...no reason...? I'm just deeply confused here.

 

[AnotherGuy]

But...creatures don't have surges. Only PCs have surges. By doing that, all you've done is punish the PCs for...no reason...? I'm just deeply confused here.

My issue was the proliferation of hit points with the invention of surges.
I capped the hit points at level 6 (I was using HD for shorthand) and the same for monsters depending on their size. It is a variation of the E6 rule.

I didn't need to go full E6 because I felt the powers of 4e were more measured at higher level than those of 3e. Also the invention of the ritual system was a huge bonus.

I edited my original post for clarity purposes.

 

[Staffan]

But...creatures don't have surges. Only PCs have surges. By doing that, all you've done is punish the PCs for...no reason...? I'm just deeply confused here.

It's been a looong time, but I believe monsters had one surge per tier (heroic, paragon, epic) in case it was ever needed. They just didn't have much use for them, but they were there in case something interacted with them (e.g. if a leader PC wanted to healing word a monster ally instead of a PC).

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

2e literally, and I mean LITERALLY literally, not the stupid use of that word as a superlative, 2e LITERALLY asked “Who dies?” Regarding 1e classes!!!!1!111!!111!!!!eleven!

(I know, I know: Zeb Cook did this specifically to provoke a response, but I couldn’t resist.)

Who?

What?

I feel like I'm trapped in an endless cycle of quoting myself and telling people to read Jon Peterson. Except now I am in a cycle of not writing essays and seeing that the stuff I don't write generates far more discussion that the stuff I do.

 

[Joshua Randall]

I feel like I'm trapped in an endless cycle of quoting myself

Sorry, Snarf. I can’t keep up with your output and your back catalogue. I figured it was better to give my [sightation] for the benefit of anyone who thought that “Who dies?” Was either me exaggerating or Zeb Cook being serious.

and telling people to read Jon Peterson.

This is my dubious face. Based on the quotes here and elsewhere, I think the world still awaits an actual historical take on D&D, that is not poorly sourced and laden with an agenda.

Except now I am in a cycle of not writing essays and seeing that the stuff I don't write generates far more discussion that the stuff I do.

Welcome to the slack life!

 

[Joshua Randall]

I regard most editions as bloated.

That is fine as your opinion, but can you see how your word choice “bloated” is judgemental and provocative?

3.5 also had 3000 odd feats.

This is a more neutral statement of fact.

If you're not a hard core gamer how do you keep up with that?

Well, at the time we used PDF lists and spreadsheets; nowadays you’d use a better electronic tool. Because out of those 3,000 feats, at any given time, maybe 10 apply to the decision you’re making at level-up.

OSR has essentially rallied behind 14 levels. It's the playstyle that's fun.

Fun for you. Excellent!

Now, where is the OSR thread that glories in the level 14 cap? Because what would happen if I stopped by there and told everyone they’re not really having fun; relitigated whatever debate led to the 14 consensus; described OD&D as “clumsy” and “sloppy”; demanded sales figures so I could prove OD&D sold worse than any other edition; etc. etc. etc.

if you want a direct clone. Which is mostly pointless as you can use existing books.

facepalm

 

[Mannahnin]

Not a 4E fan but would probably cut 10-15 levels off the game.

4e LFR had 4-5 years of high level play, so you are objectively wrong here.

4E is the only D&D game I have played/GMed that still functioned at high level play.

Yup. It's literally the only one which works smoothly at those "Epic" levels. I played in several campaigns of 4th which went to high 20s or all the way to 30.

In 3.x once you get past 10th it's all downhill. I played several campaigns up into the high teens anyway, but it ground slower and slower and slower, and our inertia to continue was really due to attachment to the characters and the campaign worlds the GMs had made. Whereas in 4th the gameplay just continues to work.

It's not really high level as such. It's level 3 to 10 stretched over 30 levels heavily nerfed.

Look at the powers in the 4E phb they're roughly on par with 5th level spells. Right there in black and white.

May as well streamline the game to 10 levels at that point and avoid the hit point bloat.

Kinda similar to B/X vs BECMI

Not really, no. It's more like 20 levels stretched to 30, except it works better than 20 levels did in 0E-3.x. It's actually playable and fun the whole way through (although players overloading their characters with off-turn abilities will slow things down if they're not good players).

You're forgetting lots of higher level abilities, rituals, and synergistic feats and magic items.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

This is my dubious face. Based on the quotes here and elsewhere, I think the world still awaits an actual historical take on D&D, that is not poorly sourced and laden with an agenda.

Oh, those are fighting words.

I will be the first to say that I have issues with Ben Riggs- I appreciate that he does the work and I like the facts he uncovered, but I find that he tends to write in a way that doesn't do justice to the facts and tries to put everything in a "goodies and baddies" narrative.

But Peterson? He always bring the receipts, and lets you judge for yourself. Sometimes, he can be too subtle- I had a conversation with another forum member after Game Wizards where the other person didn't realize that Gygax lied on the stand during the litigation after his ouster ... because Peterson didn't actually say that. Instead, he just pointed out that the judge didn't find his testimony credible (and the reasons why) which, yeah.

If you only read PATW when it came out, I can understand why you might think his writing is a bit dry and impenetrable; but he has improved immensely and has learned how to keep his style and show the receipts while making his books much more readable and engaging.

Seriously, he is doing the best work on D&D (and RPG) history right now. And I love that he is careful and consistent and relies on source documents. I enjoy a good oral history as much as the next person (When We Were Wizards podcast!) but oral histories can never be as accurate as the type of sourced-history that he is doing.