Mouseferatu
Hero
Nope. Basic and 1E used inches, rather than feet or yards, when measuring distances for encounters or travel time. An "inch" in the game referred to an inch on the table which--gasp!--is equivalent to a square in 3E or 4E.
4e "getting back to D&D's roots" how?
- Thread starter cr0m
- Start date
Nope. Basic and 1E used inches, rather than feet or yards, when measuring distances for encounters or travel time. An "inch" in the game referred to an inch on the table which--gasp!--is equivalent to a square in 3E or 4E.
ExploderWizard
Hero
The Little Raven
First Post
That's because that's not tactics. Tactics is figuring out when to use an ability to have, as well as where to use it. Positioning and movement is far more key in 4e, and movement is a huge part of combat tactics.
Which is different from "Hey Bob, don't move on your turn. I'm going to lay a cure light wounds on you." how?
You forgot some key things.
Old school distance: inches (which is what all movement rates were listed in for use with miniatures).
Old school time: segments (portion of a round); rounds (1 minute); turns (10 minutes).
New school time: hours, minutes, days.
New school distance: miles, feet.
Henry
Autoexreginated
Ways in which 4e reminds me of earlier editions:
There are other small things that jump out at me over time as I re-read them. Charges remind me more of the 1e version than the 3e version, for instance -- the only thing missing is the "length of weapon" thing.
- Single-classing is DEFINITELY stressed over multiclassing
- Monsters' XP rewards are listed on a solid scale (1e) instead of the floating CR scale.
- Truncated Monster stat blocks a la AD&D and Basic D&D
- Most combats will have a 5-minute rest period associated with them, analogous to the 1 turn rest after combat in 1E
- Saving throw "duration roll" targets are static numbers again, instead of variable DCs
- Magic items are more tightly controlled by DMs; players discouraged from selling magic, DMs encouraged to tailor it more to the players
- Weird weapons like Gyrspikes, Two-bladed swords, Orc double-axes, etc. are relegated to later books
- Coup de graces similar to "helpless damage" in 1E
- And as Mouseferatu noted, measurements are back in inches, pretty much.
There are other small things that jump out at me over time as I re-read them. Charges remind me more of the 1e version than the 3e version, for instance -- the only thing missing is the "length of weapon" thing.
Mouseferatu
Hero
Hrm. Okay, I may have misremembered the Basic. But either way, I think any argument that requires 1E not be considered "old school" has some innate flaws.
filthgrinder
First Post
I think this is an excellent example of the difference between those who say 4e is like 1e, and those who disagree. It's a type of "forest for the trees" deal.
Folks who say 4e goes back to the roots, are looking at the forest. They are seeing the game in generalities who the overall play experience, the fun being had at the table, the type of adventure and the game played.
The folks who don't agree are seeing the trees. They look specific mechanics, specific implied setting elements, or not rolling for stats (even though that option is provided in the PHB).
I think that both sides are essiential right in their cases. WotC took a modern game design approach in building a game that would give the old school 1e feel. they went back and said, how should a D&D game feel, and built up that game, using modern game design.
Now, these modern game elements, are definitely different. All the powers and effects, new races and classes, you don't have that connect. However, once you step back, look at the overview, you see the connection.
So I think that people on both sides of the issue are just arguing in circles because essientially their arguements are about different things.
Now for a snide comment:
I think a Dragonborn Warlord is more D&D-ish than a spaceship, but we seem to forget Expedition to the Barrier Peaks.
Gothmog
First Post
My group and I have found 4e us a really strong 1e vibe, but its rather hard to explain why. Here is what occurs to me:
* 4e is definitely easier to run and prep for, and DM fiat and off-the-cuff decisions are encouraged- that is a lot like 1e AD&D to me.
* The PoL default setting and the tone of monsters in the game seem very "old school" to me and my group. Things are kept more vague from the player's point of view, and the world is a big, dark, scary place.
* 4e's ease of rules use and rules-transparency is much like 1e. I've not played a D&D game in 3e where we didn't need to refer to the books 10+ times per session. With 4e, we might refer to the books once every 2 or 3 sessions. The game flows much better and keeps moving, which I have found draws the players in more.
* Kinda related to the previous point, but worrying less about rules means IME that the players get more absorbed in the story and world. Again, this reminds me a lot of our 1e days.
* 4e is less focused on rules mastery, and more focused on teamwork and tactics. 3e was strongly in the rules mastery camp, and if you wanted to, you could build a PC with no weaknesses. Thats fine for some players, but it did tend to lead to "lone wolf" kinds of situations in play, where PCs did their own thing on adventures, and didn't work or play well together. 4e has a stronger focus on class roles, with each PC really good at a few things, OK at a broader range of things, but is weak in one or two areas. PCs need each other to survive in 4e, and splitting the party is a sure way to die- that is a VERY strong 1e vibe.
* Now I know some folks will strongly disagree here, but I have found 4e PCs to be MUCH less powerful than 3e or 2e PCs in their equivalent systems. True, 4e PCs start with more HP and are more competent in relation to previous editions, but in comparison to monster and other NPCs in the world, the PCs are MUCH less powerful than in previous editions. I'm seeing my players taking a much more cautious approach to adventuring, because the next thing you encounter, even if its of equal power to you, could finish you off. That simply wasn't true at all in previous versions of the game.
* Maybe this is just my group, but I'm seeing the formation and execution or more "wahoo" plans than I did in 3e. For my group, 3e was too sterile and every rule possibility was spelled out, so people were reluctant to try something not explicitly stated. Now in 4e, my players are using their powers and rituals in more creative ways that the rules probably didn't intend, but that work anyway- and we're having a blast! My players have also gotten really crative in describing what their powers look like or how their character pulls off their action, even to the point of describing what happens on a miss! This reminds me a lot of the 1e/2e days of my group.
* 4e is definitely easier to run and prep for, and DM fiat and off-the-cuff decisions are encouraged- that is a lot like 1e AD&D to me.
* The PoL default setting and the tone of monsters in the game seem very "old school" to me and my group. Things are kept more vague from the player's point of view, and the world is a big, dark, scary place.
* 4e's ease of rules use and rules-transparency is much like 1e. I've not played a D&D game in 3e where we didn't need to refer to the books 10+ times per session. With 4e, we might refer to the books once every 2 or 3 sessions. The game flows much better and keeps moving, which I have found draws the players in more.
* Kinda related to the previous point, but worrying less about rules means IME that the players get more absorbed in the story and world. Again, this reminds me a lot of our 1e days.
* 4e is less focused on rules mastery, and more focused on teamwork and tactics. 3e was strongly in the rules mastery camp, and if you wanted to, you could build a PC with no weaknesses. Thats fine for some players, but it did tend to lead to "lone wolf" kinds of situations in play, where PCs did their own thing on adventures, and didn't work or play well together. 4e has a stronger focus on class roles, with each PC really good at a few things, OK at a broader range of things, but is weak in one or two areas. PCs need each other to survive in 4e, and splitting the party is a sure way to die- that is a VERY strong 1e vibe.
* Now I know some folks will strongly disagree here, but I have found 4e PCs to be MUCH less powerful than 3e or 2e PCs in their equivalent systems. True, 4e PCs start with more HP and are more competent in relation to previous editions, but in comparison to monster and other NPCs in the world, the PCs are MUCH less powerful than in previous editions. I'm seeing my players taking a much more cautious approach to adventuring, because the next thing you encounter, even if its of equal power to you, could finish you off. That simply wasn't true at all in previous versions of the game.
* Maybe this is just my group, but I'm seeing the formation and execution or more "wahoo" plans than I did in 3e. For my group, 3e was too sterile and every rule possibility was spelled out, so people were reluctant to try something not explicitly stated. Now in 4e, my players are using their powers and rituals in more creative ways that the rules probably didn't intend, but that work anyway- and we're having a blast! My players have also gotten really crative in describing what their powers look like or how their character pulls off their action, even to the point of describing what happens on a miss! This reminds me a lot of the 1e/2e days of my group.
Last edited:
ExploderWizard
Hero
Hrm. Okay, I may have misremembered the Basic. But either way, I think any argument that requires 1E not be considered "old school" has some innate flaws.
Whoa!! lets not jump the gun. I never said 1E wasn't old school. I merely pointed out that you were correct that 1E used inches and incorrect because Basic did not.
1E is older than Moldvay Basic anyhow and about the same age as Holmes Basic-1977 or so (At least the 1E MM which was the 1st core 1E book).
Gothmog
First Post
I forgot to say this in the previous post, but for me and my group, game mechanics can influence the "feel" of the game, but not determine it. The main thing that is important here is that the mechanics don't obstruct the flow of the game, or needlessly complicate it. Obviously, the idea of powers and healing surges are new, don't "feel" like 1e AD&D. However, the net effect of those new ideas in play "feels" very much like 1e for me and my group, and apparently quite a few other folks here too.
For me and my group, 3e needlessly complicated things, and the implied tone of the 3e rules (high magic, caster dominance, pokemounts, etc) were not in agreement with the kinds of games I enjoy running and playing. In addition, IMO there were too many "fiddly bits" in 3e, especially in character design, that actually detracted from immersion in the game (for example, "building" a character from levels 1-20 before play ever began). IME, many players fell into the optimization traps of 3e, and the game was all about maximizing bonuses and minimizing penalties. In and of itself, thats not a bad thing, but a lot of people took it to extremes, such that within the same group, two PCs of the same level could be of radically different power with build choices- which could cause all kinds of problems in play. 4e still retains feats and adds powers, but there aren't the elaborate feat trees and prereqs of 3e, so more organic character growth is again possible without penalizing the player due to suboptimal choices (meaning its harder to make a character that sucks or dominates everybody else- a VERY good thing IMO).
For me and my group, 3e needlessly complicated things, and the implied tone of the 3e rules (high magic, caster dominance, pokemounts, etc) were not in agreement with the kinds of games I enjoy running and playing. In addition, IMO there were too many "fiddly bits" in 3e, especially in character design, that actually detracted from immersion in the game (for example, "building" a character from levels 1-20 before play ever began). IME, many players fell into the optimization traps of 3e, and the game was all about maximizing bonuses and minimizing penalties. In and of itself, thats not a bad thing, but a lot of people took it to extremes, such that within the same group, two PCs of the same level could be of radically different power with build choices- which could cause all kinds of problems in play. 4e still retains feats and adds powers, but there aren't the elaborate feat trees and prereqs of 3e, so more organic character growth is again possible without penalizing the player due to suboptimal choices (meaning its harder to make a character that sucks or dominates everybody else- a VERY good thing IMO).
