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

[Lanefan]

Good observations, Henry, and to a fair extent I agree with you; but there's enough differences that - despite a valiant attempt - it's not quite the same game. Some glaring differences:

- In 4e, a 1 h.p. commoner picks up a weapon, joins the party and gains 25 h.p. on the spot. (or do the rules support minion-level PCs? Either way, the commoner-to-hero story trope is gone; in 4e you're either a commoner *or* a hero, there's no middle ground)
- Skill challenges are in, replacing to a large extent in-character dialogue between DM and players (or just between players, depending on the situation).
- I can't turn myself into a bird, or my opponent into a frog.
- Base stats now go up by themselves. In 1e, something that permanently boosted a base stat was very rare and very expensive.
- I can't find a familiar, or summon monsters. I can still hire henchmen, I suppose (I mean, in character, what's gonna stop me trying?), but the rules kinda choke on it.
- There's no penalty for dying - no Con loss, no resurrection survival roll to see if it's permanent - other than some downtime.
- Tables and charts have morphed into straight roll-againsts.
- Math doesn't matter any more. No geometry of lightning. No volume of fireball. No % rolls.

And some things that are similar that I didn't see in your list:

- the 3-18 bell curve for stats means something again, at least for the first few levels. (in other words, you're not running around with 3 base stats in the 20's at 5th level thanks to all the boost items you own)
- the DMG bothers to tell new DMs how to run a game.

Lanefan

 

[rounser]

any version of D&D that defines itself by what it excludes isn't MY classic D&D.

That's nice.

 

[Grimstaff]

A common, run-of-the-mill fight in 1e is where you'll have seven players, their eleven henchmen and six summoned monsters on one side and thirty ogres, a dozen worgs and a shaman on the other, and statistically, the ogres'll flee or surrender after taking 25% losses.

Remember the last time a fight worked out like that in 4e?

No, neither does anyone else.

I do - my 4E party went up against 20+ hobgoblins with their monstrous allies and "shaman", and the hobgobs surrendered and were allowed to leave the dungeon after about 40% casualties, and an Intimidation skill challenge (the new "home" of morale). And a similar battle occured against a warren of slavers, hobgobs, duergar, and an ogre.

I'm assuming you don't play 4E regularly, P&P, if you've played at all, or you'd know that large numbers of mixed opponents and monsters fleeing after taking a beating are now specifically built into the game again. Maybe you're assuming this about 4E because it was true in 3E?

 

[Grimstaff]

The implied setting is NOTHING LIKE classic D&D, with it's dragonborn warlords claptrap. That alone means 4E bombs spectacularly in terms of feeling like classic D&D. It's that big a deal IMO, and a problem that no splitting hairs over mechanics trivia can help.

Are you implying that if I dropped a dragonborn warlord into my '79 Greyhawk CS folio, it would immediately stop being Classic D&D?

My classic campaign setting has a "magical" weapon called "autocannon" that fell from the sky with the god "YMIG". It has a lost empire of "dragonborn" (Orichalans) that once ruled entire continents and now has been reduced to wandering tribes. There is a huge kingdom of half-demons to the South.

Sound like 4E? Sure, but it came out in '77, and is still going strong today. Its called Wilderlands of High Fantasy from Judges Guild.

 

[PapersAndPaychecks]

I'm assuming you don't play 4E regularly, P&P, if you've played at all, or you'd know that large numbers of mixed opponents and monsters fleeing after taking a beating are now specifically built into the game again. Maybe you're assuming this about 4E because it was true in 3E?

Oh, I certainly don't play 4e regularly. I've leafed through someone else's copy of the rules, and I remember how I felt about them--nonplussed and confused that this was somehow "D&D".

I felt how I'd feel if a record label produced an album by The Darkness, but called it Iron Maiden 4th Edition. After they'd stopped selling the Maiden back catalogue because we're all supposed to listen to Maiden 4e now. And then come onto messageboards pointing out all the reasons why Justin Timberlake is a much better choice for Maiden singer than Bruce Dickinson. And then someone played me the record and said, "Hey, how'dya like the new Maiden album?"

I mean, The Darkness are an okay band, in some ways they're similar to Maiden (British, guitars, distortion pedals, high-pitched vocals, etc.). But a few superficial similarities and a brand name don't make them "like" Maiden.

I feel like that about 4e. For me, the superficial similarities and the brand name don't make that product "D&D". Because for me, Maiden has Bruce Dickinson or Paul Di'Anno. And for me, D&D has descending AC and THAC0.

Anyway, I've subsequently talked to people who play and enjoy 4e, I've watched groups play it, etc. Maybe the people I saw were atypical. But from what I saw, morale wasn't a factor.

You tell me it is, which is fair enough. I'll resist the urge to ask what a "skill challenge" is because actually, I don't want to know... but it does sound as if the player is deciding whether to test one of their skills to see if the monster flees.

In other words, it's not the DM deciding what the monsters will do. The players are controlling that. Am I right?

Because I would find that totally destructive to immersiveness and a perpetuation of what I see as the 3e paradigm where control of the game is taken away from the DM and handed to the players.

I've tried not to rant, and I've tried to use lots of first person language to emphasize this is how *I* feel.

I'm not being judgmental about 4e players.

But for me, this game they play (regardless of its name) does not resemble what I understand by "D&D".

 

[Keefe the Thief]

So i think we should rephrase that to "there are similarities, but you´ll only see and anknowledge them if you played and liked both games."

 

[Storminator]

A common, run-of-the-mill fight in 1e is where you'll have seven players, their eleven henchmen and six summoned monsters on one side and thirty ogres, a dozen worgs and a shaman on the other, and statistically, the ogres'll flee or surrender after taking 25% losses.

Remember the last time a fight worked out like that in 4e?

No, neither does anyone else.

That is nothing like a 1e fight. In no one ever used hirelings or henchmen, because everyone ran 4 PCs at once.

No one ever summoned monsters because if a spell doesn't deal direct damage or heal the fighter, it's not worth casting.

And monsters never, ever run away. The DM doesn't care about any of them, so why should he protect them?

What? That's not how you played 1e?

PS

 

[timbannock]

1E is looking good to me as it is a dead system. Beyond fan support at sites like Dragonsfoot there are no new books to buy and the ones that were published may be picked up for cheap on ebay. To me the production schedule of 4E is what is going to drive me away from D&D. I just don't have enough spare cash to keep up given the schedule of release and the cost of each book. If the books were cheaper or the release schedule a little less ambitious I'd stay with it.

Definitely a good point. I'll admit though, I don't find 4E's production schedule to scary in terms of my wallet. I bought the Core 3 off Amazon (ridiculously cheap), then the FRPG and Adventurer's Vault at the same time. Then...well, nothing. And frankly, I don't see myself buying anything for a while. I'm a patient man.

On the other hand, I have started looking at PDFs of some of the classic stuff like Greyhawk stuff from 1E and some old adventures. My money might get sunk into that, because converting to 4E is dead simple.

 

[Fifth Element]

Oh, I certainly don't play 4e regularly. I've leafed through someone else's copy of the rules, and I remember how I felt about them--nonplussed and confused that this was somehow "D&D".

Hmm. We get this quite a bit. "I've never played 4E, but I have some strong opinions about it."

And for me, D&D has descending AC and THAC0.

You do realize this is a completely superficial distinction?

In other words, it's not the DM deciding what the monsters will do. The players are controlling that. Am I right?

By my understanding, no, you're not right. Maybe in the same sense as a 1E character casting charm person or suggestion on an opponent.

 

[MrMyth]

You tell me it is, which is fair enough. I'll resist the urge to ask what a "skill challenge" is because actually, I don't want to know... but it does sound as if the player is deciding whether to test one of their skills to see if the monster flees.

In other words, it's not the DM deciding what the monsters will do. The players are controlling that. Am I right?

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."
"Unlike their hill giants cousins, earth titans stand their ground even when faced with a losing battle."

Now, there aren't hard and fast rules to force the DM to make enemies retreat at certain times - just guidelines on which monsters are more likely to do so.

What characters have access to is the Intimidate skill. There are similar suggestions that a character might be able to intimidate a severely wounded enemy into surrendering, with a good enough skill check - but again, no hard and fast rules forcing the DM to do so if they feel it isn't appropriate.

Now, I've got no idea how this ties in to 1E, which I haven't played, but figured I would clear the record up on how such things work in 4E.

 

[Henry]

1E is looking good to me as it is a dead system. Beyond fan support at sites like Dragonsfoot there are no new books to buy and the ones that were published may be picked up for cheap on ebay.

In the "1E Resurgence" thread, it was mentioned that there does seem to be an increased presence of "retro-games" that either mimic or closely resemble AD&D in style and function, and while I wouldn't call it "rapidly expanding" I wouldn't say "dead" either. AD&D the brand might be unsupported and "dead", but products that can be used with it are increasingly present. Personally, I would hope OSRIC or Labyrinth Lord might become a banner to rally around, but sadly, differences of opinion on them mean that instead of one game is rallied around, it's a group of them that are rallied around, collectively.

To me, that's not a move to being 1e like. It might have matched its intent, but not actual play.

I can see your points, for sure, it's just a difference of opinion how much these make the latter look like the former. But I will say:

And yet, the 1e PHB gives me lovely little oddities like spetums and ranseurs, and bohemian ear-spoons.

Oh, come now! Those were real polearms, used by real combatants! Unlike swords filled with mercury, or 4-foot long swords with balls and chains on their pommels, or a stick with a length of chain on each end, etc. I do like the effect, myself, of levels of proficiency with exotic weapons with increasing numbers of feats spent on them. Kind of like... Weapon Proficiency slots from 1st edition.

A common, run-of-the-mill fight in 1e is where you'll have seven players, their eleven henchmen and six summoned monsters on one side and thirty ogres, a dozen worgs and a shaman on the other, and statistically, the ogres'll flee or surrender after taking 25% losses.

Remember the last time a fight worked out like that in 4e?

No, neither does anyone else.

I have seen a fight HALF like that, with the DM running a butt-load of enemies with minimal trouble. I do think that 4E has a fear of allowing players to have more than one action in a turn, and I can't tell if that's a good or bad thing yet. I must say I never liked it in 1E either when you had more people in a party than you actually had players, for the exact same reason, but I do know that henchman to round out a party and act as "red shirts and canaries" has been a long-standing tradition in D&D. I might start letting my 4E parties get hireling minions to travel with them...

You tell me it is, which is fair enough. I'll resist the urge to ask what a "skill challenge" is because actually, I don't want to know... but it does sound as if the player is deciding whether to test one of their skills to see if the monster flees.

In other words, it's not the DM deciding what the monsters will do. The players are controlling that. Am I right?

Not quite - skill challenge is more like "best 3 out of 5 rolls" towards a multi-step challenge. It does take away the "challenge the player, not the character" aspect of older D&D, though, and this is one way that 4E verges largely in philosophy with 1E -- same way as 3E verges from it, really, it's just a refinement of what was started in 3E, which was another deal-breaker for a lot of 1E fans, and has been discussed ad inifitem in other threads.

To me, it seems that things like Intimidation Skill checks aren't really that different from AD&D's morale checks, it's just more player influenced than D&D's straight up percentile morale checks were. However, when I was growing up I saw very few DMs ever use morale checks of any sort - they just decided if the monsters would fight or flee (in our younger days, it was mostly "fight to the death!!!")

 

[Jhaelen]

That is nothing like a 1e fight. In no one ever used hirelings or henchmen, because everyone ran 4 PCs at once.

No one ever summoned monsters because if a spell doesn't deal direct damage or heal the fighter, it's not worth casting.

And monsters never, ever run away. The DM doesn't care about any of them, so why should he protect them?

What? That's not how you played 1e?

Funny, because we never played 1e the way PapersAndPaychecks described it but we also never played the way you describe it

It doesn't really surprise me, though. Whenever I met another (A)D&D player at my FLGS and we told each other of our experiences there was almost never a point we could agree on. Obviously everyone played their own version of (A)D&D.

What I clearly remember is an incredible amount of house-rules when we finally stopped playing 1e. It was enough to fill a large binder to the point of bursting.

 

[Korgoth]

Probably the main difference for me, setting aside all the other stuff that has been brought up, is the Laser Beams. Spellcasters appear to be dudes that shoot laser beams at monsters.

And not just the wizard, who at 1st level is like the mighty Tim. No, even the cleric shoots laser beams... every round.

Maybe it's just a failure of my imagination. I'll cop to that. I just can't imagine a world where a cleric can repeatedly shoot laser beam after laser beam. That's the one part of 4E that really does, all hyperbole aside, seem like World of Warcraft. It seriously does.

 

[Fifth Element]

Maybe it's just a failure of my imagination. I'll cop to that. I just can't imagine a world where a cleric can repeatedly shoot laser beam after laser beam.

It might be partly that, but I will say that the changes to the cleric are probably my least favourite things about 4E. At least I believe they are, we'll see after I've played it a bit.

I understand the game reasons for the damage-plus-effect nature of cleric powers, but I do think that the dividing line between arcane magic and divine magic, which was already fairly thin, is much less visible now.

 

[garyh]

The implied setting is NOTHING LIKE classic D&D, with it's dragonborn warlords claptrap. That alone means 4E bombs spectacularly in terms of feeling like classic D&D. It's that big a deal IMO, and a problem that no splitting hairs over mechanics trivia can help.

I'm sure by now everyone knows how you feel about dragonborn, tieflings, eladrin, and warlords, rounser.

I'm curious, though - I don't think I've seen you complain about warlocks. Are those actually somehow "D&D" to you?

 

[Mallus]

I just can't imagine a world where a cleric can repeatedly shoot laser beam after laser beam.

Imagine that 4e clerics are engaged in spiritual warfare, going into battle with the aid of invisible angels whose touch weakens their enemies bodies/spirits. Presto, no more godlasers!

(you can further imagine powers like Righteous Brand as aforementioned angels inscribing a reverse Mark of Cain into opponents heads)

 

[Psion]

Oh, come now! Those were real polearms, used by real combatants!

Indeed. Point being that I see the lack of exotic but real weapons just as much of a distinction as lack of a selection of exotic but fake ones.

 

[PapersAndPaychecks]

Hmm. We get this quite a bit. "I've never played 4E, but I have some strong opinions about it."

I've never been to parliament, but I have opinions about politics. I've never been to Iceland or invested in an Icelandic bank, but I have opinions about its economy.

You do realize this is a completely superficial distinction?

Fantasy gaming is superficial. Nothing about any of this is exactly profound!

We're talking about a personal preference here.

By my understanding, no, you're not right. Maybe in the same sense as a 1E character casting charm person or suggestion on an opponent.

Sure. 1e characters can affect what other creatures do; the scare or fear spells are even more directly analagous. But for me, magic has a license to break the suspension of disbelief in a way that skills don't.

1e characters can also affect what other creatures do by means of skills; move silently is analagous. But I can accept that stealth is a learned skill, while I struggle to believe that scaring away enemies on the battlefield is something you can really learn.

I feel as if it's the DM's role to make decisions for non-player characters.

 

[johnmarron]

Before I started playing 4E, the last time I played any D&D was 1E in 1982. I don't have any specific similarities to comment on (hell, it' s been 25 years, I can barely remember the rules from 1E), but for me personally, 4E feels very much like the fulfillment of the potential I saw in 1E. It's the game I wanted AD&D to be back when I was playing it (probably due to 4E's "big Time Hero" PCs and cinematic feel).

John

 

[Fifth Element]

Fantasy gaming is superficial. Nothing about any of this is exactly profound!

We're talking about a personal preference here.

Yes, but in that sense there are degrees of superficiality. For example, the 4E powers system is a relatively unsuperficial difference between 1E and 4E, because it is so crucial to 4E's system.

"Count up" instead of "count down" is extremely superficial.