D&D 4E Ben Riggs' "What the Heck Happened with 4th Edition?" seminar at Gen Con 2023

[AbdulAlhazred]

Yeah, that's a different philosophy than mine for sure.

I want the gap to be small enough that a commoner or peasant can, without too much forethought or pre-planning, become an adventurer of some sort (probably a Fighter or offshoot, as that doesn't require too much specialized pre-training). Similarly, I often view 1st level Wizards as just having come straight out of college, fresh and naive and looking for a job, and adventuring happens to be what they settled on (or got stuck with). 1st-level Clerics are acolytes punted out by their temples to see a bit of the world (or to do the Deity's Good Work, whichever). And so on.

I mean, take Robin Hood's merry men. Most of them were peasants forced into an adventuring lifestyle, and many of them in effect became low-level Rangers or archery-spec. Fighters.

Sure, and 4e has stat blocks which are perfectly fine for depicting these types. When I use the search term 'bandit' I get:
Bandit Archer: level 2 minion
Common Bandit: level 2 standard skirmisher (this is the MV rewrite)
Human Bandit: level 2 standard skirmisher
Bandit Leader: level 3 standard soldier
Half-Elf Bandit Captain: level 6 standard skirmisher, leader
Sir Tyros, Bandit Knight: level 6 Elite Soldier, leader

There are undoubtedly many more that I could dig up with further searches, but these are probably sufficient, giving me a minion, a skirmisher, a leader, and a couple of higher level figures that would probably be surrounded by a small cadre of other figures, probably drawn from other similar stat blocks. I can think of a few off the top of my head, but the point being I have plenty of NPC stat blocks to go around. I can depict bandits as just basically normal people that have become a little tougher through living rough and whatever, and/or more advanced figures that are anti-heroic types, Robin Hood, whatever.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

As I recall Gary Gygax's preference for casual pick up games was to have the players use 3rd level PCs.

He talks about this in the 1E DMG, too, that experienced players can certainly be permitted to start above 1st level, particularly if they're joining an existing campaign, but that he advises it's best for newbies to start from zero because the experience will be invaluable.

Zero to hero is a preference. AD&D characters start out tougher than OD&D characters, as a rule. Generally speaking, every edition has had characters start out a bit stronger (2E is kind of an exception, but by 1989 I think tables NOT using the Death's Door dead at -10 rule were pretty rare, so maybe not entirely an exception).

It is a bit more subtle, but 2e PCs are a bit of a step up from core 1e. They have weapon specialization, some better armor and weapon options, usually an assumption of max level 1 HP, and the spell selections for casters are definitely better. But then once you get into the kits and the other later 2e supplements, yeah, the gloves kinda come off! lol. I will grant you though, Elf Fighter/Wizard is not as tough as the 1e FM/MU, at least until you score some elven chain. OTOH you can always play a 2e Bard...

 

[schneeland]

blowing up the FR was also a big mistake, IMO.

Indeed. More than any of the rules changes, this was the thing that spoilt 4e for a very long time for me (and, frankly, even though it retconned a lot of stuff, 5e did not really repair this).
It also didn't really help that Wizard's business decisions killed the German publisher (Feder&Schwert) that did a lot of generally well-liked translations, not only of D&D 3e, but also WFRP 2e and WoD.

 

[Retreater]

5E resembles the D&D I fell in love with more than 4E.

Side by side you can really tell the difference.

If I'm following you, you first fell in love with 2e? That was my starting edition.
And, on first glance, 5e felt like 2e to me. And I loved it for that.
But after years of play, it has started to feel like a pale imitation. It pays lip service to some of the features, but it's just sort of halfway there.
In that case, I prefer a system like 4e. At least it knows what it is and goes all in to be the best tactical miniatures skirmish game D&D has ever been (with a little for skill challenges, etc).
IMO, 5e just has no identity. No soul.
The monsters aren't based on folklore or mythology. Bland statblocks with no story, and the stats aren't even interesting, well laid out, or especially useful to the game.

 

[Voadam]

It is a bit more subtle, but 2e PCs are a bit of a step up from core 1e. They have weapon specialization, some better armor and weapon options, usually an assumption of max level 1 HP, and the spell selections for casters are definitely better. But then once you get into the kits and the other later 2e supplements, yeah, the gloves kinda come off! lol. I will grant you though, Elf Fighter/Wizard is not as tough as the 1e FM/MU, at least until you score some elven chain. OTOH you can always play a 2e Bard...

Eh, 1e has human roll stats, double specialization, and rocking UA demihumans.

2e single specialization, lower rolls, and drow are just normal elves with white hair and black skin.

Plus the 2e fighter magic user in elven chain mail is still not up to the level of the 1e one in plate mail casting spells.

I heard that the 2e Complete book of elves is the book of elvish superiority (mechanical and narrative) though. Specialty priests from anything other than the Complete Priest's Handbook can be really strong, getting stronger with every sourcebook that includes them. And skills and powers priests are definitely the way to min max end stage 2e.

Where does 2e say to give people max hp at 1st level? 1e UA has some suggested minimum starting hp but I don't remember any such suggestion for 2e.

 

[pemerton]

skills and powers priests are definitely the way to min max end stage 2e.

Uh, um, . . . guilty as charged!

EDIT: One thing I like about 4e - I can build my broken 2nd ed skills and powers cleric as a perfectly legitimate by-the-book STR paladin and it works.

 

[Fifth Element]

I am officially tired of the, "but hit points!" defense. The existence of the hit point mechanic does not mean that no argument for increased verisimilitude holds water.

Many are beyond tired of the "but you can trip an ooze!" argument. And not just because 4E doesn't actually have anything called Trip.

 

[Lanefan]

Eh, 1e has human roll stats, double specialization, and rocking UA demihumans.

Only if you use UA as written.

For these purposes it's probably best if we compare editions as of initial release, as they all get a bit nutso once all the splats are included.

 

[MichaelSomething]

You joke, but there are people here who argue that the only reason they can change the game rules is because Rule 0 allows it.

D&D isn't just for neutral or chaotic people. Lawful people should be included too!

 

[Zardnaar]

D&D isn't just for neutral or chaotic people. Lawful people should be included too!

D&Ds for everyone. Except communists, fascists, Morris Dancers and the French.