Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Henry" data-source="post: 4527393" data-attributes="member: 158">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.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:Oh, come now! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> 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. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />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... <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" />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!!!")</blockquote>

Verification