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.